Summary
finding that the defendant's sole basis of the amount in controversy requirement-the value of the loan-did not meet the preponderance of the evidence test for jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not claim that her property should be free of that encumbrance
Summary of this case from Ashley v. Bank of America, N.A.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08cv1019-MHT (WO).
February 17, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Phyllis Horace brought this lawsuit in state court seeking damages arising out of an improper loan and attempted foreclosure by defendant LaSalle Bank National Association and other defendants. LaSalle Bank removed this lawsuit based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1331. Horace now moves for remand arguing, inter alia, that the bank has failed to demonstrate that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is met in this case. Because the court agrees that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met, Horace's remand motion will be granted.
I.
LaSalle Bank contacted Horace in October 2008 informing her that $300,263.63 was due on her two-year adjustable-rate mortgage and that it intended to foreclose on her property in November. Before the bank could foreclose, however, Horace filed this action in state court, where she obtained a temporary-restraining order to enjoin foreclosure until that court could hear evidence in the case. LaSalle Bank then removed the case to this federal court.
Essentially, Horace alleges that LaSalle Bank engaged in predatory lending, giving her the loan knowing she would never be able to repay and intending to gain a windfall from foreclosure. She therefore brings a variety of claims against the bank, including negligent — and wanton-mortgage servicing, unjust enrichment, wrongful foreclosure, and breach of contract.
II.
For purposes of removal pursuant to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, where damages have not been specified by the plaintiff, a removing defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is met. Leonard v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). The defendant must do so by presenting documents received from the plaintiff "which contain an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction." Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1213 n. 63 (11th Cir. 2007). The court may not "speculate in an attempt to make up for the notice's failings." Id. at 1213. "If the jurisdictional amount is either stated clearly on the face of the documents before the court, or readily deducible from them, then the court has jurisdiction. If not, the court must remand." Id. at 1211.
Finally, "Removal statutes are construed narrowly; where plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction, uncertainties are to be resolved in favor of remand." Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994).
III.
LaSalle Bank admits that the "true gravamen" of Horace's complaint is the "unspecified amount of damages" she seeks "as a result of alleged negligence and fraud associated with the procurement of the mortgage." Defs.' Resp. M. Rem. at 6 (doc. no. 31). Nevertheless, the bank contends that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is met simply because the original value of the mortgage was $283,500. The court disagrees.
Horace does not claim that there is no mortgage on her property or that her property should be wholly free from encumbrance; in other words, the entire value of the mortgage is not at issue. Rather, Horace seeks damages for LaSalle Bank's wrongful conduct in procuring the mortgage.
The notice of removal contains very few facts. There is certainly nothing on the face of the complaint unambiguously stating how much Horace seeks in damages, nor can the court "readily deduce" the damages simply by looking to the value of the underlying mortgage. Any attempt to determine the amount in controversy based on the notice of removal would thus require the court to engage the kind of unguided speculation explicitly prohibited by Lowery. Therefore, this case will be remanded to state court
This decision finds support in Wood v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (N.D. Ala. 2008) (Hopkins, J.), where the court also remanded an action based on wrongful foreclosure and improper mortgage. In that case, the mortgage obligation was $145,000, but the court remanded, explaining that Lowery prevented the defendant from removing the case based simply on plaintiffs "assertion of claims for wrongful foreclosure and improper mortgage charges and their demand for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages." Id. at 1252.
Finally, because the court determines that this case should be remanded for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to consider the other arguments presented in Horace's motion to remand.
***
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that plaintiff Phyllis Horace's motion to remand (doc. no. 25) is granted and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama for want of subjectmatter jurisdiction.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand.
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00. CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST1. Appealable Orders : Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: 28 U.S.C. § 158Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre 701 F.2d 1365 1368 28 U.S.C. § 636 In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, 54Williams v. Bishop 732 F.2d 885 885-86 Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co. 486 U.S. 196 201 108 S.Ct. 1717 1721-22 100 L.Ed.2d 178LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc. 146 F.3d 832 837 Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. 337 U.S. 541 546 93 L.Ed. 1528Atlantic Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc. 890 F.2d 371 376 Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. 379 U.S. 148 157 85 S.Ct. 308 312 13 L.Ed.2d 199 2. Time for Filing Rinaldo v. Corbett 256 F.3d 1276 1278 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): 3 THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): 28 U.S.C. § 1746 3. Format of the notice of appeal : See also 3pro se 4. Effect of a notice of appeal : 4
Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute: (a) Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under , generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." , , (11th Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. (c). (b) a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. (b). , , (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. , , , , , (1988); , , (11th Cir. 1998). (c) Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . ." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. (d) The certification specified in (b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable. (e) Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: , , , 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, (1949); , , (11th Cir. 1989); , , , , , (1964). Rev.: 4/04 : The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. , , (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. (a) and (c) set the following time limits: (a) A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below. (b) "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." (c) If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion. (d) Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension. (e) If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. Fed.R.App.P. (c). A notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant. A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. (a)(4).