Porter et al v. Bank of America N.A., et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 11 Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to Thurston County Superior Court; denying 6 Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

NICOLAAS PORTER and DENISE
WELLMAN,

CASE NO. C13-5485RBL
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
BANK OF AMERICA; BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP,

13
Defendants.
14
15

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

16 Complaint [Dkt. #6] and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Dkt. #11]. The Court has reviewed the
17 materials filed in support and in opposition to each motion. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’
18 Amended Complaint states a claim for breach of contract (settlement agreement). It alleges that
19 after the December 21, 2011 Settlement Agreement, the defendant bank refused to recognize
20 payments made by plaintiffs; refused to recognize the Confidential Settlement Agreement and
21 modified loan amortization; denied payments by plaintiffs resulting in the loan falling into
22 arrears; defendant employees harassed Plaintiff Wellman and her minor children. Plaintiffs
23 allege that the bank’s employees, agents and contractors have caused damage to plaintiffs’ credit
24

ORDER - 1

1 rating and have caused them emotional distress and other common law and statutory damages
2 that are cognizable. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #6] is DENIED.
3

As for the Motion to Remand, the defendant carries the burden of establishing the

4 propriety of removal. Duncan v. Stuetzel, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1986). Any doubt as to
5 the right of removal is resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
6 Cir. 1992). The Court is satisfied that there is total diversity among the parties. The amount in
7 controversy is questionable as to its sufficiency (more than $75,000). The removing defendant
8 must show to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory threshold.
9 The plaintiffs assure the Court that their claims do not exceed the value of $75,000. They plainly
10 state this in the Amended Complaint. The circumstances alleged in the Amended Complaint are
11 relatively minor in nature and support the plaintiffs’ argument that the total damages are less
12 than $75,000.
13

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 6] is DENIED and the Motion to Remand [Dkt.

14 #11] is GRANTED.
15

Dated this 17th day of September, 2013.

17

A

18

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2