Gutierrez et al v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order...action remanded to state court, cy to 96th Judicial District (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/12/2013) (wrb)
.
r-~~.-Uu~s.~DWffi~TR::n°UICT~·~c~O~UR~T=----~
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
..
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE
FORT WORTH DIVISION
ALICE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
FILED
SEP J 2 2013
CLE~ U.S. DISTRICT COURT
·. By
Deputy
NO. 4:13-CV-731-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
The court has not been persuaded that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over the above-captioned action.
Therefore, the
court is ordering the action remanded to the state court from
which it was removed.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs, Alice Gutierrez and Gilbert Gutierrez, Sr.,
initiated this action by filing their original petition and an
application for temporary restraining order and temporary
injunction in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 96th
Judicial District, naming as defendant Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant removed the action, alleging that this court had
subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of
citizenship, and that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum
J
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as
contemplated by 28 U.S.C.
§
1332.
In their state court pleadings, plaintiffs alleged that on
or about October 14, 2004, History Makers, Inc., granted them a
warranty deed on the property located on Canary Drive in Saginaw,
Texas, and that on March 27, 2006, they executed a promissory
note in favor of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., secured by a deed
of trust, to purchase the property. 1
Plaintiffs alleged that
although Tarrant County records reflect various assignments of
the deed of trust, none show that defendant has any interest in
the property, yet defendant has attempted to foreclose on the
property.
Plaintiffs seek several declarations from the court,
all essentially amounting to a declaration that defendant has no
interest in the property and has no authority to foreclose.
Plaintiffs also allege causes of action to quiet title and for
trespass to try title, for violation of Chapter 12 of the Civil
Practice & Remedies Code, and also seek injunctive relief.
'Upon review of the papers attached to the state court pleadings, it appears that the March 2007
transaction was a refinance of the debt pursuant to section 50(e)(2) of the Texas Constitution, rather than
an outright purchase, as alleged in the petition.
2
II.
Basic Principles
The court starts with a statement of basic principles
announced by the Fifth Circuit:
"The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper."
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723
(5th Cir. 2002).
"Moreover, because the effect of removal is to
deprive the state court of an action properly before it, removal
raises significant federalism concerns, which mandate strict
construction of the removal statute." 2
Carpenter v. Wichita
Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1995).
Any doubts about whether removal jurisdiction is proper must
therefore be resolved against the exercise of federal
jurisdiction.
Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th
Cir. 2000).
2
The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:
[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to
the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.
(emphasis added).
3
To determine the amount in controversy, the court ordinarily
looks to the plaintiff's state court petition.
at 723.
Manguno, 276 F.3d
If it is not facially apparent from the petition that
the amount in controversy exceeds the required amount, the
removing party must set forth summary judgment-type evidence,
either in the notice of removal or in an affidavit, showing that
the amount in controversy is, more likely than not, greater than
$75,000.
Id.; Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335
(5th Cir. 1995).
The amount in controversy is measured from the
perspective of the plaintiff.
See Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of
Texas Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 640 n.4 (5th Cir. 2003).
III.
The True Nature of Plaintiffs' Claims
The petition by which plaintiffs initiated this action in
the state court does not specify a dollar amount of recovery
sought, nor does it define in any way the value of the right
sought to be protected or the extent of the injury sought to be
prevented.
Rather, the allegations of the petition are typical
of many state court petitions that are brought before this court
by notices of removal in which the plaintiffs make vague,
4
general, and obviously legally baseless allegations in an attempt
to frustrate the procedures a lender is pursuing, or has pursued,
to regain possession of residential property the plaintiffs used
as security for the making of a loan.
As the court has been required to do in other cases of this
kind, the court has undertaken an evaluation of the true nature
of plaintiffs' claims.
Having done so, and having considered the
authorities and arguments cited by defendant in the notice of
removal, the court is unpersuaded that the amount in controversy
exceeds the required jurisdictional minimum.
Nothing on the face of the petition provides sufficient
information as to the amount in controversy.
In the notice of
removal, defendant contended that because plaintiffs seek
equitable relief via a declaration that defendant has no interest
in the property, the amount in controversy is measured by the
value of the object of the litigation.
According to defendant,
when the object of the litigation is protection of the
plaintiff's property, the fair market value establishes the
amount in controversy.
Here, the fair market value of the
subject property is alleged to be $152,900.00; thus the amount in
5
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. 3
The fact that the value of the property mentioned in
plaintiffs' pleadings might be more than $75,000.00 does not
establish the amount in controversy.
Nowhere do plaintiffs in
their state court pleadings indicate that the fair market value
of the property represents the amount in damages they are
requesting.
Further, a review of plaintiffs' pleadings makes clear that
while plaintiffs take issue with defendant's purported interest
in the property or its right to initiate foreclosure proceedings,
they have no legitimate claim to outright title to the property.
Although plaintiffs reference a "release of lien" as showing
defendant has no authority to foreclose on the property, the
release makes clear that it pertains to the October 2004
transaction, rather than the March 2007 refinance.
Further, the
injunctive relief plaintiffs seek is limited to the pendency of
this action.
Hence, the court is convinced that there is no
3
Defendant relies in part on Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Knox, 3 51 F. App'x 844 (5th Cir. Aug.
25, 2009), to support its allegations as to the amount in controversy. The pertinent portion ofNationstar,
in tum, relies on Waller v. Profl Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961). This court has
previously explained its reasoning for finding Waller inapposite to determining the amount in
controversy in cases such as the instant action. See Ballew v. America's Servicing Co., No.
4:11-CV-030-A, 2011WL880135 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2011). Nothing in the notice of removal has
persuaded the court otherwise.
6
legitimate dispute in this action over ownership to the property,
only plaintiffs' efforts to extend the time they can stay on the
property and delay the sale of the property through foreclosure.
No information has been provided to the court that would
enable the court to place a value on the interest plaintiffs seek
to protect by this action.
Thus, defendant has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in
this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Consequently, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the action, and it should be remanded to the state court from
which it was removed.
IV.
Order
Therefore,.
The court ORDERS that this action be, and is hereby,
Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?