Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01853/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01853-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martha Rodriguez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Quality Loan Service Corp., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1853-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 12) and defendant Wells

Fargo Bank’s response (doc. 15). Plaintiff did not file a reply.

This is an action arising from a trustee’s sale of the plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff

asserts inter alia claims of breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair

dealing, negligence, and promissory estoppel. The plaintiff now moves to remand this action

to state court, contending that Wells Fargo’s notice of removal fails to specify the grounds

for removal. But the notice of removal clearly provides that removal is premised on diversity

jurisdiction. See doc. 1, ¶ 6. 

Plaintiff also argues that removal is improper because the amount in controversy does

not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff asserts

that her damage is the lost equity in her home, amounting to approximately $50,000. Wells

Fargo responds that plaintiff’s residence sold at the trustee’s sale for $67,700, although the

Case 2:09-cv-01853-FJM Document 19 Filed 12/04/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

appraised value of the property was $160,000. Therefore, plaintiff’s “lost equity” would

exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Moreover, Wells Fargo argues that plaintiff seeks

punitive damages, which in combination with plaintiff’s admitted damages of $50,000, would

also exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff does not respond to these arguments.

Failure to respond to arguments raised in dispositive motions “may be deemed a consent to

the . . . granting of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(i). 

We conclude that Wells Fargo has adequately demonstrated that the amount in

controversy satisfies the jurisdictional requirement so as to establish removal based on

diversity jurisdiction. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 12). 

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01853-FJM Document 19 Filed 12/04/09 Page 2 of 2