Caver v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Case remanded to 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas., No. 4:2019cv01115 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO REMAND granting 8 MOTION to Remand, denying as moot 13 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION for More Definite Statement. This action is remanded to the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. Case terminated on 5/31/2019. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caver v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Case remanded to 240th Judicial Distric...Fort Bend County, Texas. Doc. 15 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION QUINTON CAVER, § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant. May 31, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-1115 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Quentin Caver ("Plaintiff") sued defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Defendant") alleging various causes of action relating to Defendant's allegedly improper origination, servicing, and pre-foreclosure activities for his real property located at 46 Sorrento Way Drive, Missouri City, TX 77459 (the "Property"). Pending before the court are Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Docket Entry No. 8) ; Defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc. 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ("Defendant's Response") (Docket Entry No.9); Defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc.'s Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Brief in Support ("Defendant's Reply") (Docket Entry No. 14); and Defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, or Alternatively, Definite Statement, and Brief in Support Dismiss") Motion for More ("Defendant's Motion to (Docket Entry No. 13). Dockets.Justia.com Defendant removed this action from the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, alleging that the court has federal question jurisdiction over the action. 1 Plaintiff then moved court. 2 to remand the action back to the state After reviewing Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's Response, the court issued an Order on April 26, 2019, requiring Plaintiff to amend his complaint to clarify his claims against Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on May 15, 2019. 4 Defendant. 3 The court reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and concluded that "it does not appear that [Plaintiff] intended to allege a federal statutory claim in his state court petition." 5 The court required Defendant to file a brief reply to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint explaining what federal claims it believed Plaintiff to be alleging by May 30, 2019. 6 Alternatively, if Defendant agreed that no federal claim is alleged, the court ordered the parties to file an agreed order of remand by May 30, 2019. 7 Defendant filed its Reply on May 30, 1 See Notice of Removal, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 3-4. 2 See Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Docket Entry No. 8. 3 See Order [April 26, 2019], Docket Entry No. 10, p. 2. 4 See 1st Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Quiet Title as to Real Property Located at 46 Sorrento Way Drive Missouri City, TX 77459 and to Enjoin any Foreclosure/Sale During the Pendency ("Plaintiff's Amended Complaint"), Docket Entry No. 11. 5 See Order [May 16, 2019] 6 See id. at 1-2. 7 See id. at 2. I Docket Entry No. 12, p. 1. -2- 2019, arguing that this court has federal question jurisdiction over claims contained in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 8 Defendant also moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases within their statutory power. of Mississippi, Inc. v. Home Builders Association City of Madison, 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). Mississippi, 143 F.3d If a removed case is not within the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the case to state court. party, Defendant bears jurisdiction exists and 28 U.S.C. a heavy that § 1447(c). burden removal to was As the removing show that proper. federal Manguno v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) The removal statute is strictly construed in favor of remand, and all ambiguities are construed against removal. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). Defendant removed this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, which Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." § 1331. extends to civil cases "arising under the 28 u.s.c. Federal question jurisdiction is present "only [in] those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's 8 See Defendant's Reply, Docket Entry No. 14, pp. 3-7. 9 See Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 13. -3- right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal California v. California, Franchise Tax Board of the State of law." Construction Laborers Vacation Trust 103 S. Ct. 2841, 2856 for A federal ( 1983) . Southern court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim only in the rare case when "a federal issue is: (2) actually disputed, (3) (1) necessarily raised, substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress." Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013). In its Reply, Defendant argues that the court has federal question jurisdiction over both "Plaintiff's TILA [Truth in Lending Act] and RESPA [Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act] claims" and "Plaintiff's claim asserted under unspecified SEC regulation(s) ." 10 Defendant is correct that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint mentions these federal laws and regulations. For example, under a claim labeled "INTRASTATE PRIVATE SECURITIES LAWS VIOLATION REGARDING A PRIVATE SECURITY," Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants jointly and severally are accused of either jointly or severally being responsible for securitizing events whereby they presented to the SEC or some other such local agency or under REG D a conversion document and process whereby the Mortgage and Note were subject to 10 See Defendant's Reply, Docket Entry No. 14, pp. 1-2. -4- registration . If 11 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the legal basis for the claims contained in his Amended Complaint is often unclear. However, while Plaintiff fails to provide a statutory basis for some of his claims, he does clearly state at the outset that "strictly state laws are involved. " 12 Plaintiff refers frequently cites to federal laws and To the extent that regulations, them along with phrases like "as Plaintiff implemented through state law." 13 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's "improperly pled state law claims" supply the court with federal question jurisdiction because federal ( 1) Plaintiff's law and ( 2) SEC claim is completely some of the state law claims raise" questions of federal law. 14 preempted by "necessarily The Supreme Court has held that 11 See Plaintiff Is Amended Complaint 12 See id. at 8. I Docket Entry No. 11 13 I p. 25. See, e.g., id. at 28 (". . misrepresented material facts in consumer debt collections practice and MORTGAGE SERVICING FUNCTION under Federal Reg X and the act it stems from as implemented through state law and in this state . ") ; 5 (" . . . DEFENDANT received what was represented to be a Mortgage and/or Note and/or collateral pledge . . . from another without any involved ever telling QUINTON CAVER as REGULATION X as enforced in, by, and through this state ."); 23 (describing practices which violate "several established laws, policies, practices, and procedures deemed and industry standard and federal law enforced as and by and through state laws implementing Regulation X, Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act) , and unfair debt collection practices act .") (emphasis added). 14 See Defendant's Reply, Docket Entry No. 14, pp. 4-5. -5- federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over "all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Securities Exchange Act of 1934] or the rules or regulations thereunder." Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ct. 1562, 1566 (2016). To determine whether complete preemption applies, courts are to apply the same "arising under,, jurisdiction test inquiry. as is Id. used at in the 1569-70. federal As question discussed above, Plaintiff does not appear to plead any causes of action under or seek any remedies provided by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff 1 s passing mention of SEC Regulations is not enough to support federal jurisdiction. do not appear to be Plaintiff,s other state-law claims "artful pleading" to defeat federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiff,s references to Regulation X (of RESPA) and Regulation Z (of TILA) do not appear to be in an effort to assert a federal cause of action. Defendant, that federal as the removing party, jurisdiction exists While the legal basis for and bears the burden to show that removal was proper. the causes of action in Plaintiff, s Amended Complaint is often unclear, the court is satisfied that Plaintiff did not intend to plead any federal causes of action against Defendant. Because all ambiguities in Plaintiff,s Amended Complaint are to be construed against removal, the court concludes that this action does not present any claims or issues arising -6- under federal law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Docket Entry No. 8) is GRANTED; and this action is REMANDED to the 240th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. Defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure No. 13) is DENIED as MOOT. to State a Claim (Docket Entry The Clerk of this court will provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the District Clerk of Fort Bend County, Texas. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 31st day of May, 2019. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
