8883373.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ZAMORA-ORDUNA REALTY 

GROUP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

BBVA USA, 

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-579

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1332(a), 1441, 1446, 

and 1453, Defendant BBVA USA (“BBVA”) hereby removes the above-entitled action from the 

37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Texas, San Antonio Division. BBVA expressly reserves all of its affirmative defenses, 

rights, and remedies. 

In support of this notice, BBVA states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil case over which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(d)(2). It is a putative class action in which there are at least 100 proposed class members,

there is diversity between at least one plaintiff and the defendant, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. See id. This action is removable by the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), codified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441(a), 1446, and 

1453(b), because U.S. District Courts have original jurisdiction over class actions meeting the 

above-listed requirements.
2

8883373.1

2. Assignment to this Court is proper because the civil action is being removed from 

the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, which lies in the Western District of Texas. See 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(a).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3. On April 21, 2020, Plaintiff Zamora-Orduna Realty Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed 

a complaint for a putative class action in the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, Case No. 

2020-CI-07450, (the “Original Petition”), alleging BBVA allegedly failed to process Plaintiff’s 

and putative class members’ loans under the federal Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), which 

was created as part of the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known 

as the CARES Act. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for (1) Fraud and Fraudulent Inducement; 

(2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Negligence; and (5) Violation of the 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act against one defendant, BBVA. 

4. On May 4, 2020, the Summons and Original Petition were served on the duly 

authorized agent for service of process for BBVA. A true and correct copy of the Summons and 

Original Petition are attached to this Notice as Exhibit A. No further proceedings have been had 

in this action.

III. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453(b), a district court has original 

jurisdiction over putative class actions in which: (i) the putative class consists of at least 100 

proposed class members; (ii) there is diversity between at least one plaintiff and the defendant; and 

(iii) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs. 

6. Jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time of removal. Braud v. Transp. 

Serv. Co. of Illinois, 445 F.3d 801, 808 (5th Cir. 2006); Brinston v. Koppers Indus., Inc., 538 F. 

Supp. 2d 969, 975 (W.D. Tex. 2008). 
3

8883373.1

7. As set forth below, all such requirements are met in this case.

A. The Putative Class Consists of at Least 100 Proposed Class Members.

8. To establish jurisdiction under CAFA, the first requirement is that the putative class 

must consist of at least 100 proposed members. See 28 § U.S.C. 1332(d). 

9. As alleged in the Original Petition, Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of 

“[a]ll BBVA small business customers who utilized BBVA for assistance with and processing of 

their PPP loans administered by the SBA.” Orig. Pet., ¶18. 

10. Plaintiff alleges “[o]n information and belief, the proposed Class consists of 

hundreds of entities, the joinder of which in one action is impracticable. The precise number and 

identities of the Class Members are currently unknown to Plaintiffs but can easily be derived from 

Defendant’s records.” Id. at ¶ 19. 

11. Because the putative class consists of at least 100 proposed class members as 

alleged in the Original Petition, the requirement of 28 § U.S.C. 1332(d)(5) is satisfied. See, e.g., 

Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC, No. CV 18-6685, 2019 WL 92659, at *3 (E.D. La. 

Jan. 3, 2019) (relying on plaintiff’s allegation that there were “tens of thousands” of putative class 

members to provide a basis for jurisdiction under CAFA).

B. Diversity Exists Between at Least One Plaintiff and the Defendant.

12. The second requirement to establish jurisdiction under CAFA is that diversity must 

exist between at least one Plaintiff and the Defendant (the so-called “minimum diversity” 

requirement). See 28 § U.S.C. 1332(d). 

13. As alleged in the Original Petition, Plaintiff Zamora-Orduna Realty Group is a 

limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place 

of business in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited 

liability company is a citizen of each state where its members are citizens. Harvey v. Grey Wolf
4

8883373.1

Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). Based on information submitted to BBVA and 

publicly available documents accessible through the Texas Secretary of State, the members of 

Zamora-Orduna Realty Group are individuals and are residents and citizens of Texas. Therefore, 

Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas for diversity purposes.1 

14. BBVA was at the time of filing of this action, and still is, headquartered in Alabama

and chartered in Alabama and a citizen of Alabama for diversity purposes. 

15. To establish “minimal diversity” pursuant to CAFA, “any member of a class of 

plaintiffs” must be the citizen of a different state from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A) 

(emphasis added).

16. Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. See Orig. Pet., ¶ 3. Based on the allegations in the 

Original Petition, the putative class consists of “hundreds of entities.” Id. at ¶ 18. This class 

definition encompasses persons and entities with citizenship of states other than Texas or Alabama. 

Specifically, BBVA has operations in at least seven states where putative class members submitted 

PPP loans applications, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida and New Mexico, and 

some of those applicants were citizens of each of those states.2

17. Therefore, minimal diversity under CAFA is satisfied because at least one member 

of Plaintiff’s proposed class is a citizen of a state different from BBVA. See 28 § U.S.C. 

1332(d)(2).

1 A removing defendant is only required to plead a “short and plain statement” showing 

the bases for removal and is not required to present evidence at this stage. See Dart Cherokee Basin 

Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 83 (2014).

2 See BBVA, About, https://www.bbvausa.com/our-story/our-company.html (last visited 

May 7, 2020).
5

8883373.1

C. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 million.

18. Finally, the third requirement to establish jurisdiction under CAFA is that the 

amount in controversy must exceed $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs. See 28 § U.S.C. 

1332(d). 

19. The Original Petition alleges that Plaintiff and class members seek to recover no 

less than $10 million in actual and consequential damages, exemplary damages, and treble 

damages. See Orig. Pet., ¶ 2; see also Owens, 574 U.S. at 84 (2014) (“If the plaintiff’s complaint, 

filed in state court, demands monetary relief of a stated sum, that sum, if asserted in good faith, is 

‘deemed to be the amount in controversy.’”) (citing 28 § U.S.C. 1446(c)(2)).

20. Although BBVA disputes Plaintiff’s or the putative class members’ entitlement to 

any remedy or damages in any amount, Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that the amount in 

controversy for jurisdictional purposes exceeds the $5 million requirement.

IV. TRADITIONAL DIVERSITY JURISDICTION ALSO EXISTS

21. In addition to jurisdiction under CAFA, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

under traditional diversity because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Removal is 

therefore also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based upon traditional diversity jurisdiction.

a) As alleged above, there is complete diversity between the named 

Plaintiff and the Defendant. 

b) Although the named Plaintiff makes no express allegation of the amount 

demanded for itself, it alleges recovery of compensatory damages, 

exemplary damages, treble damages and attorney fees (among other things). 

Plaintiff is demanding damages because it did not receive the PPP loan,

which, under the PPP program is forgivable. 15 U.S.C. § 9005. The amount 

of Plaintiff’s loan application, trebled (pursuant to the alleged claim under 

the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act) would exceed $75,000.3 In 

3 BBVA stands ready to file supporting evidence under seal, if necessary and requested, to support this 

statement. 
6

8883373.1

addition, the alleged attorney fees would add even more to the amount in 

controversy. Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou-Con, Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th

Cir. 2002) (including “attorney fees, penalties, statutory damages and 

punitive damages” in the amount in controversy calculation). Therefore, 

the amount in controversy for the named plaintiff easily exceeds the sum of 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah 

Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).

V. COMPLIANCE WITH 28 U.S.C. § 1446

22. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of the docket sheet 

and pleadings, process, orders and other filings filed in the state court action are being filed with 

this Notice of Removal, as Exhibit B.

23. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is filed within 30 

days of service on BBVA of the pleadings setting forth the claim for relief upon which the state 

court action is based.

24. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), BBVA will promptly provide written 

notice of the removal of the state court action to Plaintiff and will file a notice of filing of removal 

with the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas. 

VI. JURY DEMAND

24. Plaintiff requested a trial by jury in the state court action on April 22, 2020.

VII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, BBVA USA respectfully requests that this Court take notice that the action 

referred to above is removed from the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas to this Court, 

and for all other relief to which it is entitled.

DATED: May 11, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

DAVIS & SANTOS, P.C.

By: /s/ Sarah Santos
7

8883373.1

Attorneys for BBVA USA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

interested parties listed below in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure via the 

method indicated below on May 11, 2020.

Alfonso Kennard, Jr

Kevin T. Kennedy

KENNARD LAW P.C.

2603 Augusta Drive, Suite 1450

Houston, Texas 77057

U.S. Mail

 X CMRRR

Facsimile

 X E-mail

 E-file

/s/ Sarah Santos

Sarah Santos

Sarah Santos

Attorney-in-Charge for Defendant

State Bar No. 24040955

E-mail: ssantos@dslawpc.com

Jason Davis

State Bar No. 00793592

E-mail: jdavis@dslawpc.com

719 S. Flores Street

San Antonio, Texas 78204

Telephone: (210) 853-5882

Facsimile: (210) 200-8395