Powell v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER... that this action is hereby remanded to the state court from which it was removed. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/4/2013) (krg)
IN THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
rocr- 42013
LISA POWELL,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
VS.
§
§
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.
NOW KNOWN AS WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
§
Defendant.
NO. 4:13-CV-777-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
Plaintiff, Lisa Powell, initiated this action by filing her
original petition in the County Court at Law Number 1 in Tarrant
County, Texas, naming as defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Inc., now known as Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.
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
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as
contemplated by 28 U.S.C.
§
1332(a).
The allegations in the state court pleadings pertain to
plaintiff's property on Paintbrush Drive in Fort Worth, Tarrant
County, Texas.
Plaintiff claims that on November 29, 2007, she
executed a note and deed of trust with defendant to secure the
purchase of her property.
However, in 2013 she became unemployed
and immediately began to seek a loan modification and other
assistance with her mortgage from defendant.
Plaintiff soon
found another job and began making partial payments to show her
good-faith effort to keep up with her payments, while defendant
continued to tell her that her modification request was under
review.
However, on July 10, 2013, plaintiff learned that
defendant had sold her home at a foreclosure sale on July 2,
2013, without affording her any notice of the pending sale.
Plaintiff asserted claims against defendant for violations
of the Texas Property Code, wrongful foreclosure, negligence, and
sought a declaration that the foreclosure was wrongful and of no
force or effect.
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." 1
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).
1
The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 144l(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:
[A]ny civil action brought in a State court ofwhich the district courts ofthe 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 Plaintiff's Claims
The petition by which plaintiff 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.
the court has been required to do in other cases of this kind,
the court has undertaken an evaluation of the true nature of
plaintiff's claims.
Having done so, and having considered the
4
As
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 argues that in an action for declaratory
relief, the amount in controversy is the "value of the right to
be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented."
Notice of Removal at 4 (citation omitted) .
Defendant contends
that because plaintiff seeks declaratory relief with respect to
her property, the amount in controversy is the fair market value
of the property.
The property sold at foreclosure for
$290,391.58; thus, in defendant's view, this amount satisfies the
jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy.
The fact that plaintiff's property sold at foreclosure for
an amount in excess of $75,000.00 does not establish the amount
in controversy.
Nowhere does plaintiff in her state court
petition indicate that the fair market value of the property
represents the amount in damages she is requesting.
Further, a
review of plaintiff's pleadings makes clear that nothing therein
5
gives rise to a claim to outright title to the property.
Rather,
plaintiff is alleging that the foreclosure was wrongful due to
defendant's failure to follow statutorily required procedures,
and she seeks a declaration to that effect.
Hence, the court is
convinced that there is no legitimate dispute in this action over
ownership to the property, nor is there any basis in the petition
by which defendant can establish that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
To sum up, no information has been provided to the court
that would enable the court to place a value on the interest
plaintiff seeks 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,
6
remanded to the state court from which it was removed.
SIGNED October 4, 2013.
Distri~J~(
I'
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?