Title Solution Services, Inc. v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, No. 2:2018cv11508 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION: IT IS ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(jls)

Download PDF
Title Solution Services, Inc. v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TITLE SOLUTION SERVICES, INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 18-11508 CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC SECTION "B"(2) OPINION The Court previously raised remand issues sua sponte after granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Rec. Doc. 11. The Court found that plaintiff did not have standing to assert a claim over the original payoff amount of $152,819.77 but did have standing to pursue a claim over the $10,731.42 difference it paid from its own funds. Id. at 5. Because the claim amount fell below the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, the Court instructed parties to submit additional briefing on the issue of remand. Id. Both parties timely complied. Rec. Docs. 11, 12. Plaintiff contends that this matter should be remanded because the amount in controversy falls well below the $75,000 threshold. Rec. Doc. 12. The actual damages alleged in plaintiff’s original petition were $10,731.42, and although Louisiana’s unfair trade practice statute provides for awarding three (3) times the actual damages sustained, plaintiff states that this still would not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold. Id. at 2 (citing L.S.A.-R.S. 51:1409(A)). Further, because the amount of attorney’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com fees that may be incurred in this suit have not been calculated, it cannot be used to add to the amount required to establish diversity jurisdiction. On the other hand, defendant opposes remand because it claims that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal and the Court’s post-removal order does not divest the Court of diversity jurisdiction. Rec. Doc. 13. Post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments reducing the amount-in-controversy do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-92 However, at the time of (1938). filing the state action and subsequent removal notice, plaintiff only had standing to assert amount for remaining its own a claim diversity jurisdiction. is for funds, well The below only the claim minimum then and the $10,731.42 difference plaintiff paid from subject to a triple multiplier under the Louisiana unfair trade practice statute. The damages at issue do not meet the amount-in-controversy jurisdiction; thus, the requirement Court lacks for subject-matter jurisdiction. “If at any time before final judgment it that the district court lacks diversity subject appears matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. New Orleans, Louisiana this 28th day of August 2019 ___________________________________ SENIOR 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.