McLaughlin et al v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for Rali 2005QS17
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. The court ORDERS that this action be, and is hereby, remanded to the state court from which it was removed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/22/2013) (npk)
. U.S. DISTRICT COURf
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
,',:'{;:'i:/j,i,
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT IC~fd":R,tr ~ I
OCT 22 21113, \'
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
~
FORT WORTH DIVISION
TIMOTHY MCLAUGHLIN AND
SANDRA MCLAUGHLIN,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
§
By"
§
Deputy
,--
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
VS.
§
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE FOR RALI
2005QS17,
NO. 4:13-CV-846-A
§
§
§
§
Defendant.
§
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.
1.
Background
Plaintiffs, Timothy McLaughlin and Sandra McLaughlin,
initiated this action by filing their original petition and
application for temporary restraining order in the District Court
of Tarrant County, Texas, 17th Judicial District, naming as
defendant Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for
RALI 2005QS17.
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.
The allegations in the state court pleadings pertain to
plaintiffs' property on Little Valley Road in Fort Worth, Texas.
Plaintiffs claim that on or about November 9, 2005, they
allegedly signed a promissory note and deed of trust for the
purchase of their property.
The note identified Homecomings
Financial Network, Inc., as the original mortgagee, and the deed
of trust named Mortgage Electronic Registration System as a
beneficiary.
Plaintiffs claim that the public records of Tarrant
County, Texas, do not reflect any assignment or transfer of the
deed of trust to defendant, leading plaintiffs to question
whether defendant is the true holder of the note.
Although
plaintiffs have attempted to obtain a loan modification from
defendant, defendant has neither approved nor denied plaintiffs'
application.
Even though defendant has not shown it is the true
holder of the note, it has foreclosed on plaintiffs' property and
has threatened to evict plaintiffs from the property.
Plaintiffs asserted claims against defendant for common law
2
fraud, breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract,
trespass to real property, and for injunctive relief and to have
the substitute trustee's deed voided.
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."l
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
lThe 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
therefore be resolved against the exercise of federal
jurisdiction.
Cir.
Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th
2000~.
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
4
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 plaintiff makes vague,
general, and often 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
plaintiff 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 contends that" [i]n an action seeking
injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is measured by 'the
value of the object of the litigation, '" or, in other words,
"the
value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to
be prevented."
Notice of removal at 4.
5
According to defendant,
because plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent defendant
from taking possession of the property after a foreclosure sale,
the value of the extent of the injury to be prevented is the
value of the property, so that the value of the property
establishes the amount in controversy.
Plaintiffs' property
purportedly has a fair market value of $142,800.00; thus,
defendant claims that this amount, alone or in conjunction with
the unspecified damages sought by plaintiffs, constitutes an
amount in controversy that exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
However, 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
their primary dispute is with defendant's authority to conduct a
foreclosure sale.
While plaintiffs question whether defendant is
the true holder of the note, and they take issue with defendant's
right or authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings, nothing
6
in the petition gives rise to a legitimate claim to outright
title to the property.
Plaintiffs' statement in the petition
that they attempted to obtain a loan modification is a tacit
admission that the property is encumbered by a debt, regardless
of whether plaintiffs acknowledge defendant's interest in the
property.
Hence, the court is convinced that there is no
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 any further transfer of interest in the
property by defendant.
Further, plaintiffs' mere request for unspecified actual
damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys'
fees does not support a finding that the requisite amount in
controversy exists.
Plaintiffs' petition does not state a
specific amount of damages, and nothing alleged on the face of
the petition would enable the court to conclude that the damages
sought would exceed the amount in controversy.
Further, without
an amount to serve as a basis for compensatory damages, the court
cannot form any reliable estimate for the amount plaintiff could
recover for additional damages.
Therefore, defendant's argument
7
is, at most, speculative, and also fails to establish the amount
in controversy.
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,
remanded to the state court from
SIGNED October 22, 2013.
8
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?