IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MARK MAGUIRE, 

vs.

AMERIHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, 

LLC.,

§

§

§

§

§

§

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, 1446 and LOCAL RULE 81, Defendant AmeriHome 

Mortgage Company, LLC (“AmeriHome”) removes Cause No. 2020CI04044, Mark MaGuire v. 

AmeriHome Mortgage Company, LLC from the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. 

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mark MaGuire (“MaGuire”) filed his Original Petition, Application for Injunctive 

Relief and Request for Disclosures (the “Petition”) in state court on February 27, 2020.1/ The 

subject of the lawsuit is real property located at 24838 Twin Arrows, San Antonio, TX 78258 (the 

“Property”), which AmeriHome had posted for a non-judicial foreclosure sale on March 3, 2020.2/ 

MaGuire seeks unspecified actual and exemplary damages from AmeriHome in connection with 

the noticed foreclosure, in addition to equitable relief restraining AmeriHome from foreclosing the 

Property.3/ 

1/ See Exhibit A-2: Petition.

2/ See id. at ¶¶6, 11.

3/ See id. at ¶87.

Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-321 ________________ 

Case 5:20-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 6
2

II.

TIMELINESS AND CONSENT TO REMOVAL

MaGuire filed his Petition in state court on February 27, 2020 and, to date, AmeriHome 

has not been served with process. Accordingly, this Notice of Removal is timely filed within thirty

(30) days of service of the Petition and citation, as is required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1). Murphy 

Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999) (“[W]e hold that a named 

defendant’s time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, 

or receipt of the complaint, ‘through service or otherwise,’ after and apart from service of the 

summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service.”).

AmeriHome is the only defendant in this action and, therefore, all named defendants have 

consented to and joined in this removal. See 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(2)(A).

III.

VENUE IS APPROPRIATE

Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio

Division, because this district and division includes Bexar County, Texas—the location of the 

pending state court action. See 28 U.S.C. §124(d)(4)(stating that the San Antonio Division of the 

Western District includes Bexar County).

IV.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), copies of all executed process, pleadings asserting causes 

of action and the answers thereto, orders signed by the state judge and the docket sheet in the state 

court action, as well as an index of matters being filed and a list of all counsel of record, are 

attached to this Notice of Removal. AmeriHome also is filing a copy of the Notice of Removal 

with the Bexar County 288th Judicial District Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d). No party 

has requested a jury trial.

Case 5:20-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 6
3

V.

BASES FOR FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction.

Federal question jurisdiction arises when a plaintiff sets forth allegations “founded on a 

claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States.” Hart v. Bayer 

Corp., 199 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 2000)(emphasis added); 28 U.S.C. §1331. A case arises under 

federal law within the meaning of §1331 if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes that either that 

federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on 

the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. 

McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006)(emphasis added); Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 

334, 337-38 (5th Cir. 2008).

Here, the face of MaGuire’s state court Petition asserts a claim for purported violations of 

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”).4/ A clearer example of a federal question 

is unimaginable. See Smitherman v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 727 F. App’x 787, 792 (5th

Cir. 2018) (action properly removed to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction where

state court petition asserted claim for violation of RESPA). This Court possesses, and should 

exercise, supplemental jurisdiction over MaGuire’s remaining state law claims because those 

claims form part of the same case or controversy as his RESPA claim. See 28 U.S. C. § 1367(a).

B. Diversity Jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity 

of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Bynane v. 

Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 866 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2017). “[C]omplete diversity requires that all 

 4/ See Exhibit A-2: Petition at ¶¶42-63.

Case 5:20-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 6
4

persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other 

side.” Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017) 

(internal citations omitted). Both statutory prerequisites for diversity jurisdiction are clearly 

present here.

1. Complete Diversity Exists.

MaGuire is a citizen and resident of Bexar County, Texas, residing at 24838 Twin Arrows, 

San Antonio, Texas 78258.

5/ Because MaGuire is domiciled in Texas, he is a citizen of this state 

for diversity purposes. Alphonse v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C., 618 F. App’x 765, 767-68 (5th

Cir. 2015). 

AmeriHome is a Delaware limited liability company. The citizenship of a limited liability 

company is “determined by the citizenship of all of its members.” Tewari De-Ox Sys., Inc. v.

Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C., 757 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014). The sole member of 

Amerihome Mortgage, LLC is Aris Mortgage Holding Company, LLC, which is also a Delaware 

limited liability company. The sole member of Aris Mortgage Holding Company, LLC is in turn 

A-A Mortgage Opportunities, LP, a Delaware limited partnership. A limited partnership is a 

“citizen of any state in which any of its partners is a citizen.” Ellison Steel, Inc. v. Greystar Constr.

LP, 199 F. App'x 324, 327 n.3 (5th Cir. 2006). None of A-A Mortgage Opportunities, LP’s 

partners is a citizen of Texas. Therefore, AmeriHome Mortgage, LLC is not a citizen of the State 

of Texas for diversity purposes.

Because no properly joined defendant is a citizen of the same state as MaGuire, complete 

diversity of citizenship exists in this case.

 5/ See id. at ¶¶2, 7.

Case 5:20-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 6
5

2. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.00.

A court may determine that removal was proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint 

that plaintiff’s claims are likely to be above the jurisdictional amount. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co.,

11 F.3d 55, 57 (5th Cir. 1993). When a plaintiff does not allege an amount of damages, the 

removing defendant “must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000.” Chavez v. State Farm Lloyds, 746 F. App’x 337, 341 (5th Cir.

2018) (internal quotations omitted). 

MaGuire’s Petition does not allege a specific amount of damages. He does, however, seek 

temporary and permanent injunctive relief precluding AmeriHome from foreclosing the Property.

6/ 

“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in 

controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Farkas v. GMAC Mortg., 

L.L.C., 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Com’n, 432 

U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). 

The fair market value of the Property that MaGuire seek to prevent AmeriHome from 

foreclosing, according to the most recent appraisal by the Bexar County Appraisal District, is at 

least $284,540.00.

7/ It is therefore beyond dispute that the amount in controversy in this case 

exceeds $75,000.00.

 6/ See id. at ¶¶87-88..

7/ See Bexar County Appraisal District Summary attached as Exhibit A-7. It is appropriate for the court 

to take judicial notice of the Bexar County Appraisal District Summary because it is a public record 

and the information it provides is readily ascertainable and the source—the Bexar County Appraisal 

District—cannot reasonably be questioned. FED. R. EVID. 201(b)(2), 803(8); see Funk v. Stryker, 631 

F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011); Johnson v. United Healthcare of Tex., Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 825, 835

(W.D. Tex. 2016) (“district courts in this circuit have routinely held that materials printed off a 

government website are admissible under [FRE] 803(8).”)

Case 5:20-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 6
6

CONCLUSION

Having satisfied the requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 and 1446,

AmeriHome gives notice that Cause No. 2020CI04044, now pending in the 288th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, has been removed to this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Joshua A. Huber 

Joshua A. Huber

Attorney-in-Charge

State Bar No. 24065457

SD Tex. Bar No. 1001404

BLANK ROME LLP

717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 228-6601

(713) 228-6605 (fax)

jhuber@blankrome.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT AMERIHOME 

MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 13, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing and/or 

attached instrument was served electronically on all counsel of record through the Western District 

of Texas CM/ECF filing System, and also as indicated below:

Via E-mail:

Robert C. Vilt

Kerry Prisock

VILT AND ASSOCIATES – TX, P.C.

5177 Richmond Ave., Suite 1142

Houston, Texas 77056

clay@viltlaw.com

kerry@viltlaw.com

 /s/ Joshua A. Huber

Joshua A. Huber

Case 5:20-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 6