Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wilson

United States District Court, District of Columbia

January 28, 2019

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
ZENOBIA WILSON, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION RE DOCUMENT NO.: 2

          RUDOLPH CONTRERAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand

         I. INTRODUCTION

         After a judgment from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia ordering the foreclosure sale of her home, Defendant Zenobia Wilson removed this case to this Court on October 16, 2018, alleging diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves to remand the case to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia on a number of grounds, including, as relevant here, untimeliness and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because this Court finds that Wilson's notice of removal was untimely and that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Wells Fargo's claims, the Court grants the motion to remand.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In January 2007, Defendant Zenobia Wilson (“Wilson”) obtained a $250, 000 loan from World Savings Bank FSB (“World Savings”) and executed a promissory note with World Savings identifying property located at 2651 Myrtle Ave, NE, Washington, DC (the “property”) as the collateral securing the loan. See Compl. at 2, Notice of Removal Ex. 1 at 6, ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“WFB”) is the successor in interest to World Savings, and the current holder of the Note and beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. Id.

         After Wilson defaulted on her mortgage in March of 2017, WFB began a foreclosure action in D.C. Superior Court in September 2017.[1] Id. at 1; see also Docket, Wells Fargo Bank v. Wilson, No. 2017 CA 006164 R(RP) (D.C. Super. Ct.). On September 1, 2018, the D.C. Superior Court granted summary judgment in WFB's favor and issued a decree of sale for the property. Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 1, Wilson, No. 2017 CA 006164 R(RP) (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2018). Wilson filed her Notice of Removal with this Court on October 16, 2018 on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. See Wilson Notice of Removal at 2, ECF No. 1; Wilson Civil Cover Sheet at 1, ECF No. 1-2. WFB filed a Motion to Remand on October 19, 2018. WFB's Mem. Supp. Mot. Remand at 1, ECF No. 2-1.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Generally, a defendant in a civil action brought in state court may remove the action to a federal district court if the action is one over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The Superior Court for the District of Columbia is considered a state court for this purpose. See Id. § 1451(1). The D.C. Circuit has explained, however, that “[w]hen it appears that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case that has been removed from a state court, the district court must remand the case.” Republic of Venezuela v. Philip Morris Inc., 287 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)) (emphasis added). Because removal implicates federalism concerns, the court “strictly construes the scope of its removal jurisdiction.” Downey v. Ambassador Dev., LLC, 568 F.Supp.2d 28, 30 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107-09 (1941)) (other citations omitted). “The party seeking removal of an action bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists in federal court.” Id. at 30 (citing Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir.1994)) (other citations omitted); see also Reed v. AlliedBarton Sec. Servs., LLC, 583 F.Supp.2d 92, 93 (D.D.C. 2008).

         Federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over civil cases where the matter in controversy exceeds $75, 000 and both parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). However, removal based on diversity jurisdiction is improper where one of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the action is brought. Id. § 1441(b)(2).

         Federal courts may also exercise federal question jurisdiction when a matter arises out of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id. § 1331. “To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action.” Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). The cause of action must be plainly stated on the face of the complaint. Id. at 113. If the complaint does not present an action that arises under federal law, removal based on federal question is improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(A).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         WFB has moved to remand this case on a number of grounds, including untimeliness and subject matter jurisdiction. First, the Court finds that removal was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Second, the Court finds that, regardless of the timeliness of removal, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction either based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) or federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to remand.

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.