NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 1 

82850337V.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

YVONNE SANCHEZ 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-551

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Trustee for 

the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of April 1, 2005 Park Place Securities, Inc. AssetBacked Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-WHQ2, (“Wells Fargo”), Defendant, removes this 

action from the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas to the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, as follows: 

I. STATE COURT ACTION 

On April 17, 2020, Plaintiff Yvonne Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed her Original Petition in the 

288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, styled: Yvonne Sanchez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A., Cause No. 2020CI07284 (the “State Court Action”). 

In the State Court Action, Plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure sale of the real property 

commonly known as 12030 Sunburst Lane, San Antonio, Texas 78230 (the “Property”) was 

wrongful because the statute of limitations to foreclose has expired. See Compl. p. 2-3. Plaintiff 

also alleges statutory fraud and requests a declaration that the foreclosure sale is invalid because 

of the statute of limitations. Id. Based on this allegation, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 2 

82850337V.1

wrongful foreclosure and statutory fraud and seeks to quiet title. Id. p. 3. Plaintiff also seeks 

injunctive relief, actual damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. 

Defendant removes the State Court Action to this Court on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction. 

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

This action is properly removed to this Court, as the lawsuit is pending within the district 

and division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(2). 

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

has original jurisdiction over this action based on diversity jurisdiction because Defendant is now, 

and was at the time this action commenced, diverse in citizenship from Plaintiff, and the amount 

in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), this Notice of Removal is accompanied by copies of the 

following materials: 

Exhibit A Civil Cover Sheet and Supplemental Cover Sheet 

Exhibit B State Court Docket Sheet and State Court File 

Exhibit C Bexar County Appraisal District Records for the 

Property 

In connection with the filing of this Notice of Removal, Defendant is filing a copy of the 

Notice of Removal in the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(d). 

III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 

Where there is complete diversity among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, an action may be removed to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1332(a), 1441(a). Complete diversity exists in this case because Plaintiff is not a citizen of the 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 3 

82850337V.1

same state as Defendant. Additionally, this action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

A. THE PARTIES ARE COMPLETELY DIVERSE. 

Plaintiff is a natural person, so her citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by 

“where [they are] domiciled, that is, where [they have] a fixed residence with the intent to remain 

there indefinitely.” Margetis v. Ray, No. 3:08-CV-958-L, 2009 WL 464962, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 

25, 2009) (citing Freeman v. Northwest Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 555-56 (5th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff is domiciled in Bexar County, Texas. See Compl. ¶ 2. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of 

Texas for diversity purposes. 

Wells Fargo is a national banking association organized under federal law. A national 

bank, for diversity purposes, "is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its 

articles of association, is located." Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006). 

Under its articles of association, Wells Fargo's main office is located in South Dakota. Therefore, 

Wells Fargo is a citizen of South Dakota for diversity purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Wachovia 

Bank, 546 U.S. at 307. 

Because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states, there is complete diversity 

between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

B. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

Where a defendant can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in 

controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, removal is proper. See

White v. FCI U.S.A., Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 675–76 (5th Cir. 2003). A defendant can meet this 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 4 

82850337V.1

more likely than not exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See St. Paul Reins. Co. v. 

Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); Berry v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C-09-116, 

2009 WL 2868224, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2009). 

“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 Mortgage, 

LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341(5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 

U.S. 333, 347 (1977)); Martinez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 777 F. Supp. 2d. 1039, 1044 

(W.D. Tex. 2010). Where, as here, “‘the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into 

question in its entirety, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy.’” Nationstar 

Mortgage LLC v. Knox, No. 08-60887, 351 F. App’x 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Waller v. 

Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961)); see also Alsobrook v. GMAC Mortg., 

L.L.C., 541 F. App’x. 340, 342 n.2, (5th Cir. 2013); Copeland v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 11-

51206, 485 F. App’x 8, 9 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Lindsey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank Nat. Ass’n, 

No. 3:12-CV-4535, 2013 WL 2896897, at *16 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2013) (“[W]here the plaintiff 

puts the title to property in dispute, the value of the property is the proper measure of the amount 

in controversy.”). 

In addition, the Court may also consider actual damages, exemplary damages and 

attorney’s fees in determining the amount in controversy. See White, 319 F.3d at 675-76; St. Paul 

Reins. Co., 134 F.3d at 1253 n.7; Rawlings v. Travelers Property Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07-CV1608-O, 2008 WL 2115606, at *8-9 (N.D. Tex. May 20, 2008) (considering Plaintiffs’ request for 

exemplary damages and potential recovery pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

41.008, and finding that the amount in controversy “more likely than not” exceeded $75,000); 

Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. L.P., 309 F.3d 864, 874 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e hold that 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 5 

82850337V.1

when there is state statutory authority for the court to award attorney’s fees . . . such fees may be 

included in the amount in controversy.”); Ray Mart, Inc. v. Stock Building Supply of Texas, L.P., 

435 F. Supp. 2d 578, 588 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (including potential award of attorney fees in 

calculating the amount in controversy). 

Based on a review of the Petition and the evidence presented, the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant’s 

lien on the Property is void, and as a result, the entire value of the Property is squarely at issue. 

See Bardwell v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 3:11-CV-1002-B, 2011 WL 4346328, at *2 

(N.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2011) (finding value of the property at issue was an appropriate measure of 

the amount in controversy where the plaintiff sought to preclude the defendants from exercising 

their rights in the property); Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 351 F. App’x at 848; Martinez, 777 F. Supp. 

2d at 1047; Waller, 296 F.2d at 547-48. According to the Bexar County Appraisal District, the 

current market value of the Property is $345,160.1 In addition, Plaintiff seeks damages “in excess 

of $200,000.” Thus, the amount in controversy clearly exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs. 

Because there is complete diversity among the parties and because the amount in 

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

1441, and 1446. Therefore, removal is proper. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 

1Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Bexar County Appraisal District tax assessed market valuation 

of the Property. The tax assessed value is not meant to show the true fair market value, but rather to establish that the 

property value likely exceeds $75,000. Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendant respectfully 

requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit C. 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 5 of 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 6 

82850337V.1

WHEREFORE, Defendant removes this action from the 288th Judicial District Court, 

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, 

LOCKE LORD LLP 

/s/ Jennifer McCammon 

B. David L. Foster 

State Bar No. 2403155 

dfoster@lockelord.com

LOCKE LORD LLP 

600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 305-4700 (Telephone) 

(512) 305-4800 (Facsimile) 

Robert T. Mowrey 

 State Bar No. 14607500 

 rmowrey@lockelord.com

LOCKE LORD LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 

Dallas, Texas 75201-6776 

(214) 740-8000 

(214) 740-8800 (facsimile) 

Jennifer McCammon 

 State Bar No. 24101983 

 Jennifer.mccammon@lockelord.com

LOCKE LORD LLP 

JPMorgan Chase Tower 

600 Travis Street, Suite 2800 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 226-1200 

Facsimile: (713) 223-3717 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 6 of 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PAGE 7 

82850337V.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon 

the following counsel via ECF pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 5, 2020. 

Elizabeth Russell 

The Law Office of Albert Van Cleave III, PLLC 

1520 W Hildebrand 

San Antonio, Texas 78201 

Elizabeth_R@vancleavelegal.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

/s/ Jennifer McCammon

Jennifer McCammon 

Case 5:20-cv-00551 Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 Page 7 of 7