Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Notice of Removal 

Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

PABLO GAY § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Case No. 5:20-cv-00154 

 § 

QUICKEN LOANS INC., § 

 § 

 Defendant. § 

 § 

DEFENDANT QUICKEN LOANS INC.'S 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, Defendant 

Quicken Loans Inc. ("Quicken Loans") hereby removes this action from the 166th Judicial District 

Court of Bexar County, Texas, to the United States District Court of the Western District of Texas, 

San Antonio Division, and as grounds for removal states as follows: 

I. STATE COURT ACTION 

1. On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Pablo Gay ("Plaintiff") filed his Plaintiff's Original 

Petition and Stay of Order to Proceed With Expedited Foreclosure Under Tex. Rule Civil 

Procedure 736 In Cause No. 2018CI12464 and 2019CI13189 (the "Petition") in the 166th Judicial 

District Court of Bexar County, Texas, styled Pablo Gay v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Cause No. 

2020I0054 (the "State Court Action"). 

2. Plaintiff asserts claims related to real property located at 24427 Brazos Stage, San 

Antonio, Texas 78255 (the "Property"). See Petition, pg.2. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, 

that it is entitled to avoid foreclosure of a loan on the Property. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and 

a declaratory judgment "declaring the Loan and Security Instrument void..." Id. at 4. 

Case 5:20-cv-00154 Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 6
Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Notice of Removal 

Page 2 

DA 574081.2 

3. With this Notice of Removal, Quicken Loans removes the State Court Action to 

this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, as more fully described below. 

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

4. This action is properly removed to this Court because the State Court Action is 

pending within this district and division. 28 U.S.C. §§124(d), 1441, 1146(a). 

5. This removal is timely because it is being filed "within 30 days after the receipt by 

the defendant, though service or otherwise, a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for 

relief upon which such action or proceeding is based." 28 U.S.C. §1446(b). 

6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of 

the entire file from the State Court Action at the time of this removal. 

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), Quicken Loans is simultaneously with the filing 

of this Notice of Removal (1) serving Plaintiff with a copy of this Notice of Removal, and (2) 

filing a copy of the Notice of Removal in the 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. 

A copy of the Notice of Removal filed in the State Court Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

1

 

III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 

8. The Court has diversity jurisdiction in the matter. Where there is complete diversity 

among parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 an action may be removed to federal 

court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a). Complete diversity exists in this case because Plaintiff is not 

a citizen of the same state as Quicken Loans. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 

(2005). As shown below, the amount in controversy requirement is also satisfied. 

 

1

 Quicken Loans has not included Exhibit 1 to the state court removal notice because Exhibit 1 is a copy of 

this Notice of Removal. 

Case 5:20-cv-00154 Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 6
Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Notice of Removal 

Page 3 

DA 574081.2 

A. Diversity of Citizenship 

9. According to the Petition, Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas for purposes of diversity 

jurisdiction. See Petition, pg. 2. 

10. Quicken Loans is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Michigan, 

whose main office, according to its corporate filings with the Michigan Secretary of State is in 

Ann Arbor, Michigan. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1348, for diversity purposes, Quicken Loans is a 

citizen of Michigan. Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 126 S. Ct. 941, 163 L. Ed2d 797 

(2006). 

11. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and Quicken Loans is not a citizen of Texas, 

there is complete diversity among parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

B. Amount in Controversy 

12. The amount-in-controversy element is also satisfied. Where a defendant can show, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy is greater than the jurisdictional 

amount, removal is proper. See White v. FCI U.S.A., Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 675 (5th Cir. 2003); see 

also St. Paul Reins. Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 n.13 (5th Cir. 1998) (“The test is 

whether it is more likely than not that the amount of the claim will exceed [the jurisdictional 

minimum].”). The defendant can meet its burden if it is apparent from the face of the petition that 

the claims are likely to exceed $75,000 or, alternatively, if the defendant introduces other evidence 

to show that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000. E.g., Manguno v.

Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002); Greenberg, 134 F.3d at 1253. 

“The amount in controversy is determined from the perspective of the plaintiff, and the proper 

measure is the benefit to the plaintiff, not the cost to the defendant.” Berry v. Chase Home Fin., 

LLC, No. C-09-116, 2009 WL 2868224, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2009). To determine the amount 

Case 5:20-cv-00154 Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 6
Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Notice of Removal 

Page 4 

DA 574081.2 

in controversy, a court may consider actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees. 

White, 319 F.3d at 675–76. 

13. In this case, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing Quicken Loans from 

foreclosing on the Property. See Petition, pg. 4. The amount in controversy in an action for 

injunctive relief or declaratory relief can be characterized as "the value of the right to be protected 

or the extent of the injury to be prevented." See Greenberg, 134 F. 3d at 1252-53. When the right 

to the property is at issue, courts look to the value of the property to determine whether the 

minimum amount in controversy has been met for jurisdictional purposes. Nationstat Mortgage 

LLC v. Knox, 351 Fed. App'x 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2009); see Berry v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 

C-09-116, 2009 WL 2868224, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2009) (finding under similar claims that, 

because “[a]bsent judicial relief, Plaintiff could be divested of all right, title, and interest to the 

Property . . . , the value of the declaratory and injunctive relief to Plaintiff is . . . the current 

appraised fair market value of the Property”). Further, the Fifth Circuit has held that where a 

plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief relating to the ability to enforce a deed of trust, the 

“value of that property represents the amount in controversy” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 

See Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C., 737 F.3d 338, 342-43 (5th Cir. 2013). 

14. Because Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and the right to property is at issue, 

the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the Property. See Knox, 351 Fed. App’x 

at 848; Turner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-CV-2701-M (BF), 2013 WL 2896883, 

at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2013) (using current market value of property from the Dallas Central 

Appraisal District in finding amount in controversy satisfied where plaintiff sought to prevent 

foreclosure) (citing Copeland, 485 Fed. App’x at 9 (“[T]he amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 

due to the value of the subject property . . . .”)). According to the Bexar Appraisal District, the 

Case 5:20-cv-00154 Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4 of 6
Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Notice of Removal 

Page 5 

DA 574081.2 

current value of the Property is $313,570.00.2 Thus, the value of the Property satisfies the amount 

in controversy requirement. A true and correct copy of the 2019 tax statement is attached hereto 

as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. 

15. Because there is a complete diversity between the parties and the amount in 

controversy requirement is satisfied, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 

removal is proper. 

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Quicken Loans Inc. removes this action from the 166th Judicial 

District Court of Bexar County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District 

of Texas, San Antonio Division, so that this Court may assume jurisdiction over the cause as 

provided by law. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Jacob Sparks 

Jacob Sparks 

Texas Bar No. 24066126 

SPENCER FANE LLP 

5700 Granite Parkway, Suite 650 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Tel: (214) 750-3624 

Fax: (214) 750-3612 

Email: JSparks@SpencerFane.com 

Attorney for Quicken Loans Inc. 

 

2

 Quicken Loans does not contend that this particular appraisal constitutes the most accurate valuation of 

the Property. Such appraisal is provided only for the purpose of establishing a base line value to prove that 

the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. 

Case 5:20-cv-00154 Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 6
Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Notice of Removal 

Page 6 

DA 574081.2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 7, 2020, I served this Notice of Removal on the following 

party in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

Robert Clarence Newark, III 

Newark Law Offices 

1341 W. Mockingbird Lane, Ste. 600W 

Dallas, TX 75246 

Tel: 866-230-7236 

Fax: 888-316-3398 

Email: office@newarkfirm.com 

By: /s/ Jacob Sparks 

Jacob Sparks 

Case 5:20-cv-00154 Document 1 Filed 02/07/20 Page 6 of 6