United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filed in Connecticut Superior Court by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(“Wells Fargo” or “Plaintiff”),
against Crystal White (“Ms. White” or
“Defendant”) and Landsdowne Condominium
Association, Inc. (“Landsdowne” or
“Defendant”), Ms. White removed this case to this
Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and claimed that this
Court has both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction
over the case. Notice of Removal at 2, ECF No. 1.
Fargo now moves to remand the case back to Connecticut
Superior Court, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction
over the case. Mot. for Remand, ECF No. 10.
reasons that follow, Wells Fargo's motion to remand is
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
White owns property located at 229 Landsdowne in Westport,
Connecticut. Notice of Removal Ex. A, Underlying Complaint
(“Underlying Compl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 1. On
September 13, 2005, she executed a note for a loan of $400,
000 from World Savings Bank, FSB, in exchange for a mortgage
on the property. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. The mortgage
was recorded on September 23, 2005. Id. ¶ 4.
December 31, 2007, World Savings Bank, FSB, became Wachovia
Mortgage, F.S.B. Id. On November 1, 2009, Wells
Fargo purchased Wachovia Mortgage, F.S.B., was acquired by
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Id. Wells Fargo now claims
that it holds the Note and Mortgage. Id.
23, 2013, Wells Fargo sued Ms. White in Connecticut Superior
Court, seeking to accelerate the balance due on the Note,
declaring it due in full, and to foreclose on the Mortgage
securing the Note. Id. ¶ 5. The state court
case proceeded through motions to dismiss and summary
judgment motions, and trial was scheduled for May 25, 2017.
Mot. for Remand at 2, ECF No. 10.
23, 2017, Ms. White, at this point proceeding pro
se, removed the matter to federal court, and on May 24,
2017, her Notice of Removal was docketed. Id.;
Notice of Removal at 12. Ms. White removed this case under 28
U.S.C. § 1441, claiming both diversity and federal
question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 10-11. She claims
her removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(3)(B).
Id. at 3.
6, 2017, Wells Fargo moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. §
1447, arguing that removal is improper because the parties
are not diverse, the pleading does not involve a federal
question, and the pleading violates the “unanimity
rule” with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Mot. to
STANDARD OF REVIEW
district court will remand a case, “[i]f at any time
before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). “[T]he party asserting jurisdiction bear the
burden of proving that the case is properly in federal
court[.]” United Food & Commercial Workers
Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden
Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). The party
asserting jurisdiction “must support its asserted
jurisdictional facts with ‘competent proof' and
‘justify its allegations by a preponderance of the
evidence.'” Southern Air, Inc. v. Chartis
Aerospace Adjustment Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 162369, at *1
(D. Conn. 2012) (quoting United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, 30 F.3d at 305)). “In light of the
congressional intent to restrict federal court jurisdiction,
as well as the ...