Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01038/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dustin Bradford,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1038 PHX DGC

ORDER

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff Dustin Bradford filed a complaint in Maricopa County

Superior Court against Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Ocwen Financial

Corporation, and Ocwen Mortgage Company, LLC. Doc. 1-1 at 4-9. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants breached a repayment agreement with him by refusing to credit payments that

he made, and also by causing a trustee’s sale to be conducted on a property that he owned.

Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and

fair dealing. Id. at 7. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants must honor the

repayment agreement, that Defendants must credit him for payments that he made pursuant

to the repayment agreement, and that Defendants waived a right to apply late fees to his

account. Id. at 8. Plaintiff also requests attorneys’ fees. Id. 

On May 12, 2010, Defendants removed the case to this Court on the ground that this

Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. Doc. 1. Defendants argue that the action

satisfies the amount in controversy requirement because Plaintiff is seeking a loan

modification and because Defendant is entitled to foreclose on the property for which

Case 2:10-cv-01038-DGC Document 16 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiff is seeking a loan modification – a property subject to a current loan of $290,950.

Doc. 1 at 2-3. It is not clear to the Court, however, that the entirety of the loan is at

controversy in this case. Rather, it appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that Plaintiff is seeking

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,022.74 and declaratory judgment. Doc. 1-1 at 8.

Pursuant to the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, any civil action brought in state

court over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to the

federal district court for the district where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts

strictly construe the statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,

566 (9th Cir. 1992). Indeed, there is a “strong presumption” against removal and “[f]ederal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

instance.” Id. “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.

The only dollar amount that Plaintiff demands in this case is $3,022.74 in attorneys’

fees. Defendant “bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102

F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); see Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not facially

evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party

must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the

jurisdictional threshold.”). To meet its burden, Defendant “must provide evidence

establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds

[$75,000].” Id.; see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67 (“If it is unclear what amount of damages the

plaintiff has sought, . . . then the defendant bears the burden of actually proving the facts to

support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.”) (emphasis in original); McNutt

v. GM Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (“[T]he court may demand that

the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations by a preponderance of evidence.”). In

this case, “plaintiff chose a state rather than federal forum. Because the plaintiff instituted

the case in state court, ‘there is a strong presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large

amount in order to confer jurisdiction on a federal court[.]’” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Case 2:10-cv-01038-DGC Document 16 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab

Co., 303 U.S. 283, 290 (1938)).

Defendants shall file by July 30, 2010 a memorandum not to exceed five (5) pages

in length in which they must meet their burden of “establishing, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404.

Plaintiff shall file a response not to exceed five (5) pages by August 3, 2010.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin a trustee’s sale

currently scheduled for August 12, 2010. Doc. 14. Plaintiff has also requested that the Court

set an expedited briefing schedule. Doc. 15. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for an

expedited briefing schedule. Defendants’ opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction

shall be filed no later than August 4, 2010. Plaintiff’s reply brief shall be due by noon on

August 9, 2010. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on

August 11, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to expedite briefing schedule (Doc. 15) is

granted.

DATED this 26th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01038-DGC Document 16 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 3