Mathews et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al, No. 3:2009cv00083 - Document 27 (W.D. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 9/24/10. (jcj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
sy.” McGaw v. Farrow, 472 F.2d 952, 954 (4th Cir. 1973). Even if monetary figures were assigned to this right, they would be far too speculative to meet even the preponderance of the evidence standard, and I cannot imagine a speculative sum for the value of the face-to-face meeting that would exceed $75,000. Even if the value of the property properly represents the “value of the object of the litigation,” plaintiffs still would not be entitled to recover more than $75,000 from defendant if 4 Plaintiffs seek “a declaratory judgment that PHH has not complied with the terms of the deed of trust sufficient to allow PHH to go forward with foreclosure of the home. . . .” Plaintiffs never sought an injunction, preliminary or permanent, and their complaint presents a justiciable controversy only as to whether defendant owed plaintiffs the duty to conduct, or attempt to conduct, a face-to-face meeting with them prior to commencing foreclosure. The “sufficient to allow” language in the complaint does not operate to convert plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action into an injunction action or other form of suit. -10- granted the requested declaratory relief on their claim. See Toler, 25 Fed. Appx. at 143. This is not a suit to quiet title or even for simple breach of contract, and if granted the requested declaratory relief, neither party has established that plaintiffs stand to recover any amount of money from defendant. Plaintiffs stand to recover only the right to have defendant conduct, or attempt to conduct, a face-to-face meeting with plaintiffs before commencing foreclosure. Even if granted such a right, and such a meeting were to take place, the outcome of that meeting is too speculative to establish a reliable “value” for the instant controversy. Nothing before the court suggests that a face-to-face meeting with defendant prior to its having commenced foreclosure would have “saved” plaintiffs’ home from foreclosure. Significantly, defendant has never alleged the property’s total value, much less provided an affidavit or other “competent proof” of the property’s value, assessed, appraised, estimated, or otherwise. Even though I find that the “value of the object of the litigation” is the value associated with defendant conducting or attempting to conduct a face-to-face meeting with plaintiff prior to the commencement of foreclosure, the pecuniary value and costs to both parties, by any calculation, are “too speculative and immeasurable to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.” Vargo v. Del. Title Loans, Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:10-cv-1251, 2010 WL 2998788, at *2 (D. Md. July 27, 2010). III. Principles of federalism favor remand where subject matter jurisdiction is doubtful. Construing removal jurisdiction strictly, as it must be construed, I find that defendant has failed to establish that removal was proper. The burden of establishing jurisdiction in this removal action lies squarely with defendant, and defendant has not carried its burden. Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in the instant civil action, and the -11- matter must be remanded to the Circuit Court of Nelson County, Virginia. All pending motions will be denied as moot, and this matter will be stricken from this court’s active docket. An appropriate order follows this memorandum opinion. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to all counsel of record. 24th day of September, 2010. Entered this _____ -12-
]]>
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.
