Schoenbauer v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 3:20-cv-01901

Property at issue: 9364 Forest Hills Blvd., Dallas, TX; plaintiff executed note and deed of trust in 2004 for $200,000; note later transferred to Deutsche Bank.
After plaintiff became disabled he entered loan-modification negotiations; Deutsche Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings but offered a modification instead.
Plaintiff submitted modification documents, alleges Deutsche Bank misplaced documents, orally assured no foreclosure during modification, yet a foreclosure sale was scheduled for September 5, 2017.
Plaintiff sued in Dallas County (June 29, 2020) asserting breach of contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, and RESPA violations; defendant removed to federal court (July 17, 2020) asserting diversity and federal-question jurisdiction.
Plaintiff moved to remand (Aug. 17, 2020). Defendant submitted Dallas County appraisal showing the property value at $600,000; plaintiff did not dispute the valuation and sought injunctive relief to prevent sale/eviction, placing title at issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complete diversity exists	Federal court lacks jurisdiction (generally); remand required	Deutsche Bank is a Delaware citizen; plaintiff is Texas domiciliary, so parties are diverse	Diversity exists — removal not barred by §1441(b)
Whether amount in controversy exceeds $75,000	Complaint alleges no dollar amount; plaintiff suggested it might not exceed threshold	Value of the property (object of litigation) controls; DCAD appraisal shows $600,000, so amount exceeds $75,000	Amount in controversy satisfied — exceeds $75,000
Whether remand to state court should be granted	Case should be remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction	Removal was proper based on diversity (and alternatively RESPA)	Motion to remand denied; federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether court needed to decide federal-question jurisdiction under RESPA	Federal-question jurisdiction absent	Deutsche Bank argued RESPA supports federal-question jurisdiction	Court did not decide federal question because diversity jurisdiction was established

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2001) (burden of proving federal jurisdiction lies with removing party)
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) (requirement of complete diversity)
De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55 (5th Cir. 1993) (removing party must prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995) (methods for proving amount in controversy)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (amount in controversy for injunctive relief measured by value of object in litigation)
Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988) (must distinctly and affirmatively allege party citizenship)
Waller v. Prof'l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1961) (when title to property is in dispute, property value controls amount in controversy)
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (removing party bears burden to show federal-question jurisdiction exists)
Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2007) (doubts about propriety of removal resolved in favor of remand)