Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00297/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

Sandra J. Hope, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Bank NA, as successor in interest to

Bank of America NA; JPMorgan Chase

Bank NA; California Reconveyance

Company; Deborah Brignac; John Doe

Brignac, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-00297-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for remand (titled "objection to removal to

federal court") (doc. 10) and defendants California Reconveyance Company ("CRC"),

JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's response and motion for leave to amend the notice of

removal (doc. 11). Plaintiff did not reply, and the time for replying has expired. We also

have defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss (doc. 15), which

defendant Brignac joined (doc. 16). Plaintiff did not respond, and the time for responding

has expired.

I

In 2006, plaintiff refinanced her Arizona home by executing a Deed of Trust for

$536,800. Plaintiff initiated this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa

County, challenging defendants' non-judicial foreclosure of her home. The complaint alleges

Case 2:12-cv-00297-FJM Document 18 Filed 04/16/12 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Defendants note that they mistakenly listed U.S. Bank's headquarters as Minnesota

in the notice of removal (doc. 1). They clarify that U.S. Bank is actually headquartered in

Ohio, and move for leave to amend their notice of removal. Plaintiff did not respond.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to amend the notice of removal. See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

- 2 -

claims for (1) declaratory judgment; (2) breach of contract; (3) fraud; and (4) wrongful

foreclosure. 

II

Plaintiff moves for remand to state court, arguing that defendants have offered no

proof of their own citizenship or proved that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Thus, plaintiff argues defendants have not met their burden to prove that diversity

jurisdiction is proper. 

Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity between plaintiff and

defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is

undisputed that plaintiff is a citizen of Arizona. Defendants allege that JPMorgan Chase is

a national banking association with its main office in Ohio, and that U.S. Bank (successor

in interest to Bank of America) is a national banking association with its main office in

Ohio.1

 A national banking association is a citizen of the state where its main office is

located. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318, 126 S. Ct. 941, 952 (2006).

Thus, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank are citizens of Ohio. Next, defendants allege that

CRC is a corporation incorporated in California with its principal place of business in

California. Thus, CRC is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Finally,

defendants allege that Deborah Brignac resides in and is a citizen of California. Because no

defendant is a citizen of Arizona, complete diversity exists.

Plaintiff alleges that the entity defendants are actually incorporated in Delaware. But

even if this were true, there would still be complete diversity between the parties. Plaintiff

also complains that defendants did not offer evidence that proves the citizenship of each

defendant. However, nothing in the removal statute requires defendants to submit evidence

in conjunction with their notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (requiring a party to

Case 2:12-cv-00297-FJM Document 18 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

sign the notice of removal pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. and include "a short and plain

statement of the grounds for removal"). 

Next, plaintiff argues that defendants have not shown by a preponderance of the

evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. She states that she did not ask for

a specific amount of damages in the complaint, and does not yet know the amount. Part of

the relief plaintiff seeks, however, is a declaratory judgment that defendants cannot proceed

with a non-judicial foreclosure of her home. If granted, this would prevent defendants from

foreclosing on a property that they aver is currently worth $222,000 and for which plaintiff

has a principal loan balance of $536,785.03. Plaintiff has not claimed otherwise. Thus, the

value of the object of this litigation - plaintiff's home - easily exceeds $75,000. See Cohn v.

Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that it is "well established that the

amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation") (citation

omitted); see also Schultz v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, CV-11-00558-PHX-NVW,

2011 WL 1771679, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2011) (amount in controversy met when

plaintiff challenged foreclosure on a property valued at $128,800 with an outstanding

principal loan balance of almost $300,000). Accordingly, we have diversity jurisdiction over

this action and removal was proper.

III

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety for failure to state a

claim. Because plaintiff failed to respond to the motion, we construe the lack of a response

as a concession and grant the motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2(i) ("if the unrepresented

party. . . does not serve and file the required answering memoranda. . . such non-compliance

may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose

of the motion summarily").

IV

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's objection to removal to federal court (doc.

10). IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's

motion for leave to amend the notice of removal (doc. 11). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Case 2:12-cv-00297-FJM Document 18 Filed 04/16/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

GRANTING defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss (doc.

15). The action is dismissed against all defendants.

The Clerk shall enter judgment.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00297-FJM Document 18 Filed 04/16/12 Page 4 of 4