Zamora v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
831 F. Supp. 2d 1284
D.N.M.2011Background
- Zamora filed state-court action June 22, 2011 against Wells Fargo with five state-law claims and a request for damages and injunctive relief.
- Zamora sought leave to file a supplemental complaint in state court; the proposed supplemental pleading added a FCRA claim and a defamation claim, but it was not yet filed in the live pleadings.
- Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court on September 28, 2011, basing removal on federal-question jurisdiction and complete preemption, and later filed a Supplemental Notice of Removal on October 18, 2011.
- Zamora moved to remand arguing improper removal under § 1446(b) because the initial pleading did not clearly state the amount in controversy or federal basis, and that removal should have been based on diversity if the case was removable.
- The court held Wells Fargo did not timely remove based on unequivocal notice from the initial pleading but ultimately found no subject-matter jurisdiction exists because Zamora’s live pleadings contain no federal claims.
- The court remanded the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the remand motion on timeliness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal timely given the initial pleading? | Zamora | Wells Fargo | Timeliness not established; however, court ultimately remanded for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does the case have federal-question or complete-preemption-based jurisdiction based on Zamora's live pleadings? | Zamora | Wells Fargo | No federal claims in Zamora’s live pleadings; removal bases do not apply. |
| May Wells Fargo amend or supplement its removal to add new bases of jurisdiction after the initial notice? | Zamora | Wells Fargo | No; § 1653 does not permit adding a new basis after the 30-day window. |
| Should the case be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction even if timeliness arguments fail? | Zamora | Wells Fargo | Yes; lack of live federal claims requires remand. |
| Did Wells Fargo properly cure deficiencies by relying on a proposed supplemental pleading that had not been approved for filing in state court? | Zamora | Wells Fargo | No; proposed supplemental pleading not a live claim and cannot support removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1997) (removal timing and ripeness considerations; post-removal changes discussed)
- Akin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 1998) (clear and unequivocal notice required from the initial pleading to start the 30-day removal period)
- Brennan v. Univ. of Kan., 451 F.2d 1287 (10th Cir. 1971) (amendments under 28 U.S.C. § 1653 not used to add new grounds for removal)
- Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 1999) (removal period must be strictly observed; no automatic cure for missing jurisdictional facts)
- Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 1995) (presumption against removal jurisdiction; removal statutes strictly construed)