HSBC Bank USA, National Asscoiation v. Goldman et al, No. 9:2013cv80410 - Document 9 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

Court Description: Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss; Remanding Case to State Court. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 1/30/2014. (ir)

Download PDF
HSBC Bank USA, National Asscoiation v. Goldman et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-80410-CIV-MARRA HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR JPMORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-A6, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, WITHOUT RECOURSE, Plaintiff, v. CLIVE GOLDMAN, ANDREA GOLDMAN, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 8). No response was filed and the time to file one has expired. This matter is now ripe for review. I. Background On December 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed a one-count Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint against Defendants in the state court in Palm Beach County. (DE 1-1, p. 1-3). On July 15, 2010, Final Summary Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure in the amount of $894,989.87 was entered in favor of Plaintiff HSBC. (DE 1-6, p. 11). The property was sold at a foreclosure sale. (DE 1-9, p. 28). Defendants’ appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal was dismissed on August 26, 2011 as untimely. (DE 1-7, p. 32). Finally, on April 17, 2013, the state trial court denied Defendants’ Objection to Foreclosure Sale. (DE 1-10, p. 3). Defendants removed this case on April 24, 2013. (DE 1). Defendants allege that some federal laws were violated in the foreclosure process, and base Dockets.Justia.com jurisdiction on both federal question and diversity of citizenship. On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Dismiss arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and citing to numerous defects in the removal process. Plaintiff HSBC contends that this case should not be remanded to the state court because the proceedings have concluded, and that this case should be simply dismissed. II. Discussion The removing defendant has to establish that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over the proceedings. See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, the Court finds that Defendants have not done so, and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. Defendants cite to the violations of federal laws in their Notice of Removal (DE 1). However, no federal claims were raised in the state court action. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction. In order for diversity jurisdiction to exist, citizenship of the parties must be alleged. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Here, Defendants only state that Plaintiff is “subject to New York Trust Law,” and allege nothing else concerning citizenship of the parties (DE 1, p. 2). This is insufficient to show that the Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction. The statute governing procedure after removal provides that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Therefore, this case must be remanded. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 2 (DE 8) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This case is remanded to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 30th day of January, 2014. ________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 3

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.