Parks v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
2:11-cv-00852
M.D. Ala.Dec 14, 2011Background
- Parks filed suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (and fictitious defendants) on a mortgage/loan dispute.
- Bank of America, N.A. became successor by merger to BAC on July 1, 2011 and removed the case to federal court for the Middle District of Alabama on October 7, 2011.
- Plaintiffs are Alabama citizens; Bank of America, N.A. is a North Carolina citizen; Countrywide is a citizen of New York and California.
- Plaintiffs allege improper charges, late fees, and misleading financial advice related to a November 25, 2006 promissory note and mortgage.
- Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for mental anguish, money paid for closing/fees, lost interest, punitive damages, but do not specify a damages amount or seek declaratory/injunctive relief.
- The court sua sponte remands, finding Defendants failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is no declaratory or injunctive relief to prop up the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper given diversity and uncertain amount | Parks contends amount in controversy is not shown above $75,000 | Defendants contend the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Remand granted; removal lacking clear jurisdictional basis |
| Whether value of the home or loan can establish amount in controversy absent declaratory/injunctive relief | No declaratory/injunctive relief requested; debt/home value not determinative | Value of loan/deed could indicate greater damages | Not used to meet threshold; not determinative |
| Whether mental anguish/punitive damages suffice to meet the amount in controversy | Damages for mental anguish and punitive damages sought | Such damages, without other readily determinable damages, support >$75,000 | Insufficient evidence to establish >$75,000; remand affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal jurisdiction is limited to authority conferred by Constitution/ statutes)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (removal jurisdiction narrowly construed; remand favored when unclear)
- Wymbs v. Republican State Election Comm., 719 F.2d 1072 (11th Cir. 1983) (recognizes limited jurisdiction and remand bias when jurisdiction is not clear)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (amount-in-controversy must be determined from the record; cannot infer from potential relief)
- Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996) (preponderance of the evidence standard for amount in controversy)
- Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806) (complete diversity requires no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant)