Court Opinion

ID: 9382554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 00:00:49.036403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.640862
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20657      Document: 00516690651          Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                            March 27, 2023
                                    No. 21-20657
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

   Arig, Incorporated,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                        versus

   Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee of
   Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust F; Carrington
   Mortgage Services, L.L.C.; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
   Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
   Incorporated,

                                                           Defendants—Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:20-CV-2857

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Elrod and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Plaintiff-Appellant, Arig Inc., appeals the district court’s denial of its
   motion to remand. It alleges that, upon removal to federal court, Defendants-

          *
         This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Judge
   Oldham concurs only in the judgment.
Case: 21-20657        Document: 00516690651              Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                          No. 21-20657

   Appellees never established complete diversity of citizenship. Because we
   hold that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case based
   on complete diversity of the parties, we AFFIRM.
                                                I
           In 2008, a non-party to this case obtained a loan to purchase real
   property. He secured his obligation to repay his loan by executing a deed of
   trust granting a lien to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as
   nominee for SecurityNational and its successors and assigns.                       MERS
   assigned the deed of trust to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. JPMorgan then
   assigned the deed of trust to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as
   trustee of the Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust F. Carrington Mortgage
   Services, LLC services the loan.
           In 2012, the homeowners’ association of the non-party’s property
   sued for past-due assessments, obtained a default judgment, and ultimately
   sold the property at a constable’s sale. Arig Inc. purchased the property,
   foreclosing the judgment on March 3, 2020. Arig Inc. subsequently sued
   Defendants-Appellees in state court on July 10, 2020.1 Arig Inc. sought to
   quiet title to the property in its name and declare the security instrument void
   and unenforceable.
           Thereafter, JPMorgan and MERS filed notices of removal to the
   Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, asserting diversity
   jurisdiction. The remaining defendants at the time of removal (Wilmington
   Savings, SecurityNational, and Carrington Mortgage Services) consented to

           1
             Arig Inc. named MERS, SecurityNational, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Carrington
   Mortgage Services, and Wilmington Savings Fund Society as defendants. The district
   court voluntarily dismissed SecurityNational by agreement of the parties, and it is not part
   of this appeal.

                                                2
Case: 21-20657        Document: 00516690651              Page: 3       Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                          No. 21-20657

   removal. JPMorgan and MERS amended their removal notice to include
   additional information regarding Wilmington Savings’s interest in the
   Stanwich Trust. Defendants-Appellees asserted that Wilmington Savings’s
   citizenship, as trustee for the Stanwich Trust, controls for diversity purposes.
   Arig Inc. moved to remand, disputing that the Stanwich Trust’s citizenship
   was properly established.
           The district court denied Arig Inc.’s motion to remand, denied
   Arig Inc.’s amended motion to remand, and granted the Defendants-
   Appellees’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. The district court also denied
   Arig Inc.’s request for leave to amend its second amended complaint. Arig
   Inc. appeals the district court’s order denying its amended motion to
   remand.2
                                               II
           We review a denial of a motion to remand de novo. SGK Props.,
   L.L.C. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 881 F.3d 933, 939 (5th Cir. 2018). “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.” Bynane v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 866 F.3d 351, 355
   (5th Cir. 2017). “Complete diversity requires that all 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) (alteration omitted) (quoting McLaughlin v. Miss. Power
   Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004)). The party seeking the federal forum
   has the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Id.

           2
             Arig Inc. also appeals the grant of Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss and
   the denial of its motion for leave to amend its second amended complaint. Arig Inc.’s brief,
   however, assigns no error to the latter two actions. Accordingly, we do not address them.

                                                3
Case: 21-20657      Document: 00516690651           Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                     No. 21-20657

          Arig Inc. claims that the district court should have required the
   Defendants-Appellees to establish the citizenships of the Stanwich Trust’s
   shareholders before determining that it had jurisdiction. Arig Inc. alleges that
   “Wilmington is not an active trustee.” Put differently, despite naming
   Wilmington Savings as the sole defendant, Arig Inc. alleges that Wilmington
   Savings is a nominal or formal party and that the beneficial shareholders
   destroy diversity jurisdiction. Arig Inc. is correct that “[i]n determining
   diversity jurisdiction, ‘a federal court must disregard nominal or formal
   parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the
   controversy.’” Bynane, 866 F.3d at 356 (quoting Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee,
   446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980)). However, relying on Navarro and our cases
   applying it, we determine that the district court did not err in concluding that
   diversity existed.
          “Where a trustee has been sued or files suit in her own name, the only
   preliminary question a court must answer is whether the party is an active
   trustee whose control over the assets held in its name is real and substantial.”
   Id. at 357 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). In
   Navarro, the seminal case on this topic, the Supreme Court determined that
   a group of trustees had the requisite degree of control because they held legal
   title to trust assets, were authorized to invest those assets for the benefit of
   shareholders and could sue and be sued in their capacity as trustees. 446 U.S.
   at 464. But there was nothing talismanic about that combination. In Bynane,
   we determined that a trustee had sufficient control citing only the facts that
   the trustee held legal title to trust assets and certificate holders had limited
   power over trust operations. 866 F.3d at 357. Similarly, in SGK Props., it was
   enough that a trustee was “assignee of the trust’s assets” and “holder of the
   Note and all rights due under it.” 881 F.3d at 940.
          The case law demonstrates, moreover, that limits on a trustee’s
   authority do not necessarily disqualify the trustee from real party status. The

                                          4
Case: 21-20657         Document: 00516690651               Page: 5      Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                          No. 21-20657

   trustees in Navarro could be fired by shareholders and had to secure
   shareholders’ permission before disposing of more than half the trust’s
   assets. 466 U.S. at 465 n.14 (explaining that “these limited powers of
   intervention” do “not strip the trustees of the powers that make them real
   parties to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction”). And the
   trustee in Bynane was subject to certificateholders’ “limited rights to vote or
   otherwise control the operation of the trust.” 866 F.3d at 357.
           We have little trouble determining that Wilmington Savings wields
   the necessary degree of control for real party status. The governing trust
   agreement expressly vests legal title to trust assets in the trustee.3
   Wilmington Savings is also empowered to convey and transfer mortgage
   assets with the consent of certificateholders or the trust manager; is assigned
   various recordkeeping responsibilities; is designated to serve as the
   mortgagee of record and to pay premiums on HUD mortgage assets; is
   authorized to perform duties in connection with finance transactions using
   trust assets, selling trust assets, and making liquidation distributions; and is
   responsible to establish accounts and receive, maintain, invest and disburse
   funds. Wilmington Savings is also empowered to bind the trust without the
   certificateholders’ involvement, subject to a few enumerated exceptions. Yet
   these exceptions are analogous to the Navarro agreement’s requirement that

           3
              The trust agreement initially appears to limit Wilmington Savings’s legal title to
   Mortgage Loans and REO property. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that legal
   title to all assets is held by the trustee because this provision contains the caveat that all
   assets shall be vested in the trustee where required by law. And “for a trust to be a trust”
   in Texas, “the legal title must immediately pass to the trustee, and beneficial or equitable
   interest to the beneficiaries.” Bank One Tex. v. United States, 157 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir.
   1998) (quoting Cutrer v. Cutrer, 334 S.W.2d 599, 605 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1960),
   aff’d, 345 S.W.2d 513 (Tex. 1961)).

                                                 5
Case: 21-20657         Document: 00516690651                Page: 6       Date Filed: 03/27/2023

                                             No. 21-20657

   trustees secure the permission of shareholders before disposing of more than
   half of the trust’s assets in that they implicate the very existence of the trust.4
           To be sure, the trust agreement does not cede unfettered control over
   trust assets to the trustee. It provides that Wilmington Savings may not
   convey or transfer certain categories of assets without the consent of the
   certificateholders or the trust manager, must often take direction from the
   trust manager, and can be removed by the certificateholders. All the same—
   as with shareholders’ “limited powers of intervention” in Navarro and
   certificateholders’ “limited rights to vote or otherwise control the operation
   of the trust” in Bynane—we hold that the various checks on Wilmington
   Savings’s authority leave it with sufficiently significant control that the
   district court was correct to deem it the real party in interest.
                                         *        *         *
           For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
   judgment.

           4
             Wilmington Savings does not have unilateral decision-making authority over: (1)
   amending or dissolving the trust, (2) declaring bankruptcy on certificates, (3) merging the
   trust with other entities, (4) creating liens not permitted by the trust, (5) incurring debt not
   permitted by the trust, or (6) issuing new certificates not permitted by the trust.

                                                  6