Walker v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:2019cv00310 - Document 16 (D.R.I. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court (Certified copy of order sent to the Clerk of Court for the state court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) ) and denying as moot 14 Motion for Leave to File. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 2/11/2021. (Jackson, Ryan)

Download PDF

ignment issue or the Bank’s purported lack of authority to foreclose. Thus, the Court concludes that the Complaint does not contain a meaningful challenge to the Bank’s interest in the property. 6 Case 1:19-cv-00310-WES-LDA Document 16 Filed 02/11/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 522 the Complaint seeks merely to block the instant foreclosure attempt, not all future attempts. However, Plaintiff complicates the matter by requesting, among a blunderbuss of demands, a permanent injunction until further order of the Court. this demand is unclear. See Compl. ¶ 76. The basis for But despite this confusing deviation, the gist of the Complaint is clear: Plaintiff believes that the attempted foreclosure did not strictly comply with the mortgage agreement, and he therefore foreclosure absent strict compliance. seeks to prevent In context, therefore, the Court interprets the reference to a permanent injunction as repeating the request for an injunction barring foreclosure absent compliance with the terms of the mortgage. Thus, the Court concludes that neither the value of the property nor the amount owned on the loan represents the amount in controversy. In the alternative, Defendants argue that the Complaint’s monetary demands are close enough to the requisite amount that “there is a ‘reasonable probability’ the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Defs.’ Resp. to Mot. Remand 5 (quoting Porter v. Am. Heritage Life Inc. Co., 956 F. Supp. 2d 344, 346 (D.R.I. 2013)). Specifically, Defendants note that the monetary claim against the Bank is only $5,000.01 less than 7 Case 1:19-cv-00310-WES-LDA Document 16 Filed 02/11/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 523 the requisite amount in controversy, while the monetary claims against Shellpoint fall short by only $0.02 (or $0.01 by the Court’s reading). See id. Were Defendants to point to some evidence – or at least offer an argument - regarding the cost of the temporary injunction, the Court might be able to make the relatively short leap to federal jurisdiction. such arguments or evidence. But Defendants offer no Shellpoint is not alleged to have any ownership interest in the property, so it is unclear whether an injunction would present any costs whatsoever to the company. See Compl. ¶ 4. As for the Bank, a temporary injunction may well pose a cost greater than $5,000.01, but the Court is not in the business of speculating about additional costs or damages, and it would be impermissible for the Court to do so. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Plaintiffs are the masters of their complaints, and the Court takes the Complaint as presented. It is the Defendants’ burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and they have failed to meet that burden. See Hernandez, 318 F. Supp. 3d 8 Case 1:19-cv-00310-WES-LDA Document 16 Filed 02/11/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 524 at 561 (remanding where defendants provided no evidence of the cost of restarting the foreclosure process). 3 III. Conclusion Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED; Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Removal Notice, ECF No. 14, is DENIED AS MOOT. This case is hereby remanded to the Rhode Island Superior Court. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. William E. Smith District Judge Date: February 11, 2021 3 The Court therefore does not address Plaintiff’s alternative argument that Defendants waived their opportunity to remove the case by filing an answer and asserting affirmative defenses in the state court. See Mem. Supp. of Mot. Remand 810, ECF No. 7-1. 4 Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, Mot. Remand 1, ECF No. 7, is denied. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”). 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.