Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Paulsen, Karen et al

Filing 25

ORDER that this case is REMANDED to the Polk County Circuit Court. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/6/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.
13-cv-857-wmc
MICHAEL J. TATE,
Defendant.

Defendant Michael J. Tate removed this foreclosure action from Polk County Circuit
Court alleging both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. On February 27,
2014, the court concluded that: (1) it did not have federal question jurisdiction; and (2)
Tate had properly alleged neither the citizenship of plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC
(“Nationstar”) nor his own state of domicile. Accordingly, the court ordered Tate to file
and serve an amended notice of removal by March 14, 2014, containing good faith
allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
On March 13, 2014, Tate filed an amended notice of removal as requested. (Dkt.
#24.) In that notice, Tate alleges that Nationstar is wholly owned by Nationstar Mortgage
Holdings Inc., which is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Lewisville, Texas. However, Tate has still failed to provide his state of domicile, which is
required for the court to determine whether complete diversity exists in this matter. He
alleges that he is “a constitutional citizen of the Wisconsin Republic,” but as mentioned in
the court’s previous opinion and order, for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction,
Tate must allege the state in which he is domiciled, “in which [he] intends to live over the
long run.” Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012).

At this point, it is unclear where Tate is domiciled. Nationstar has attempted to
serve him in Wisconsin and in Minnesota, both of which attempts failed. (See Br. Exs. 1-2
(dkt. #16-1, -2).) Tate has provided the court with no other address of residence. While it
is his right not to provide that information, it also means that Tate again fails to met his
burden to establish complete diversity, nor has he otherwise met his burden of showing that
subject matter jurisdiction is present. See Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562
F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009) (party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears burden
of establishing it).
Tate essentially now seeks to characterize himself as a “stateless citizen.” Even were
the court to credit this assertion, Tate’s stateless citizenship would also destroy complete
diversity under § 1332(a)(3). See Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., Inc., 108 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir.
1997).
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly emphasized this court's
obligation to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Craig v. Ontario Corp.,
543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008) ("Subject-matter jurisdiction is so central to the district
court's power to issue any orders whatsoever that it may be inquired into at any time, with
or without a motion, by any party or by the court itself."). Because Tate has not established
(and apparently cannot establish) subject matter jurisdiction (despite being given repeated
opportunities to do so), this case must be remanded to state court.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Polk County Circuit Court.
Entered this 6th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3