Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 12-3526 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Mellon, seeking to represent a class of Arkansas homeowners facing non-judicial foreclosures by Mellon. After plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and then granted Mellon's motion to dismiss, the district court awarded Mellon costs despite Mellon's failure to file a verified affidavit substantiating the costs. The court concluded that 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1)'s one-year removal limitation is inapplicable in this case based on 28 U.S.C. 1453(b). Therefore, Mellon was not required to remove this class action within one year of plaintiff's original complaint. Because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the only named plaintiff was a citizen of Arkansas at the time of commencement and removal, and no defendant is a citizen of Arkansas, this class action falls within the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1332(a). Plaintiff's challenge to the district court's dismissal of his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) was foreclosed by the court's decision in Rivera v. JPMorgan Chase Bank. Finally, the district court legally erred in awarding costs to Mellon where Mellon provided no affidavit substantiating the costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to remand and dismiss the case, but reversed the award of costs and remanded with instructions.
Court Description: case - Civil Procedure.The one-year limit for removing cases to federal court under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(c)(1)is inapplicable to this case based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453(b), and defendant was not required to remove the class action within one year of plaintiff's original complaint; the court cannot conclude that diversity jurisdiction was proper based solely on an allegation that plaintiff was a resident of Arkansas; however, plaintiff's submission that he was a citizen of Arkansas when the case was commenced and when it was removed amended the pleadings to satisfy the diversity question; because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the only named plaintiff was a citizen of Arkansas and no named defendant was, this action falls within the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a); under this court's decision in Rivera v. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Johnson, 719 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2013), the district court did not err in dismissing this action; however, the district court erred in awarding costs to defendant since defendant failed to file the verifying affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1924.
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.