Twin Trees, LLC v. Haring, No. 5:2019cv00003 - Document 26 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 5/2/19. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U . S.DIST.COURT ATY OKE,VA FI LFD MAt 22 2218 U N ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT CO U RT W E STE RN D IST RICT O F W R GIN IA H ARRISON BU RG D IW SIO N JULI BY; D DUDLFY LERK ' . TW IN TREE S,LLC, Plaintiffy Cid lAction N o.: 5:19-CV-3 ELIZABET H H A RIN G , By: M ichaelF.U rbansld, ClziefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. M EM O RAN D U M O PIN IO N PlaintiffTwinTrees,LLC tf<TwinTrees'')fiedanunlawfuldetainezactiontoevicta ' corporatetenantofwlaiclkdefendantElizabethHaringrfl-larinf)waspresident.After o: , receivingajudgmentinstatecourt,TwinTreesfiledtwoslAmmonsestobeservedon H aring;afteraseriesofmissed hearingsand banlm pptcy peddons,H aring rem oved this mattertothiscourt.TwinTreesmovedtoremand.Ptzrsuantto28U.S.C.j636@ (1)7),the couttreferredtheissueofremovabilitytoUnitedStatesM agistrateludgeloelC.Hoppefor azepoztandtecommendaéon.JudgeHoppetecommendedTwin Ttees'smodon begtanted, andHaring objected to thisconclusion. Forthereasonsstatedbelow,thecourtwillOVERRULE Haring'sobjection, Twin Trees, LLC v. Haring AD O PT therepottand recom m endaéon in itsentirety,and GR AN T Twin Trees'sm odon Doc. 26 to rem and. 1. Thisissuearidesfrom a landlozd-tenantdisputethatbe'gan in the fallof2014,when Twin Treesand ffH ugheslnsurance and O ld Town lnsurance''executed a three-yearlease Dockets.Justia.com onabuildinginMountlackson,Virginia.ECF No.1-2,at13.Haring(thenElizabeth Coomes)andhethusbandatthetime,ChazlesR.Coomesrfcoomes'),signedonbehalfof tenantsHughesInsurance/old Town.J.dz.at16-17.Thetenantsstopped payingrent,andin lateN ovem berof2015,b0th H aring and Coom esvacated theproperty.Ldz.at11. . Twin Tzees fûed an unlawfuldetaineraction to evictin the Shenandoah County G eneralD istrictCourtin O ctober2015.ECF N o.7-1,at1.The sum m onsnam ed Tfold Town Insurance& FinancialServices,Inc.''asthe sole defendantand alleged thatO 1d Tow n hadbreachedtheleasebyfailingto pay$2,200inrentand $220in latefees.J-1. LTwin Trees 'also sought$2,451.52 in dam agesforrenovation atthe property,pluscourtcostsand interest.1d.Twin Treeslater filed am oéon to am end to requestadditionaldam agesand reim br sem ent.ECF N o.1-4,at1-5. A fterhearing atgum enton the am ended unlawfuldetainerclaim ,theH onorable JudgeW .DaleH ouffoftheShenandoah CountyGeneralDistrictCotzttentezed default judgmentagainstOldTown in theamountof$6,877.34,pluspossession ofthepropertyand late fees.SeeECF N o.7-1.O n M arch 3,2016,H aring filed forbankruptcy underChapter 13 in theU nited StatesBankmpptcy CourtfortheW estern D isttictofVitginia,H arlisonburg Division.ECF N o.7-3,at1.H aring had,how eveq flled forbanktnzptcy twicein the previous year,andpursuantto 11U.S.C.j3.62(c)(4)(A),theautomaécstay clid notgo into effect. Coom esv.StnzcturedAssetSec.,N o.5:16-cv-48,2017W L 2799903,at*1(W .D .Va.lune 27,2017).W hen oneofhercreclitorsftledamotion to conflrm thatno staywasin effect, H aring asked the courtto im pose a stay despite thepreviousbanlcnlptcy peddons.Ld.xO n M ay 9,thebankmlptcy courtclid so,wit.h the conclition H aring tim ely pay herm ortgageand Kfacllieveaconfitmed Chapter13Plan byluly6,2016.:7Id.Afterseveralcondnuances,the bankmlptcy courtdisnaissed Hating'sChapter 13 peédon on M ay 9,2016 becauseH ating had failed to m aketherequited paym entsand herproposed Chapter13 plan thatwasffnot feasibleand confit-mable.''Jdxat3-4. - M eanwlaile,in April2016,Twin Treesasked the Shenandoah County G eneralDisttict Courtto issuetwo slzm m onsesto answezinterrogatoriesin connection with the default judgmentagainstOld Town in theunlawfuldetaineracéon.ECF No.5-1,at1-2& 10-11. Thesesum m onsesw ete directed to H ating astheregistçred agentforOld Tow n butlisted twodifferentaddresses.Id.Thesummonsesarelabeled ffcaseNo.gG1V15-1876-02''and ffcaseNo.(G1V15-1876-03,7'id.sat1& 10;theyarecovteralproceeclingsbroughtto executethemoneyjudgmententeredagainstOldTown.lHaljngwaspersonanyservedat one ofthe addressesto w hich the sum m onsesw eresent,and a heating wassetforM ay 23, 2016.ECF N o.5-1,at1 & 10-11.Twin Treesagreed to cancelthehearing and postpone post-judgmentproceedingsuntilHaring'sbanltruptcyproceedingsconcluded.ECF No.710,at1-2. On Septem ber18,2017,Twin Trees'scounselappeared in generaldisttictcourtand questioned H aring aboutO ld Town'sassets.ECF N o.7-10,at2.H e feltthattheresponses H aring provided wereffvagueand incom plete,''and sp filed a m oéon forptoduction of 1 It is the above collatezalproceedings that Haring has rem oved to federalcourt.O n M arch 28,2019,Hazing R ed a Rsupplem entto Opposidon to M odon to Rem and and Leave to A mend''in which she purportsto rem ove am odon for sancûonsandamoéon forproducdonofdocumentsthatTwinTreesftledinpost-judgmentproceedtngs.ECFNo.12. Hasing insiststhisisnotthe unlawfuldetaineracdon buta ffdifferentcasewith differentpardes''than thosenam ed in the Sum m ons to Answer Interzogatories,N os.GV 15-1876-02 apd GV15-1976-03.ECF N o.9.H aring also azgues thatthe statecourt'sjudgmentagainstO1dTownand theleaseitselfaretmenforceablebecausetheywereprocutedbyfraudor deceitand violatevariousstateand federallaws.See generallyECF N o.1,at4-7. documentstegardingthecomoradon'sassets.LdxludgeHouffsetahearingon thismodon forO ctober2 at1:00 pm ,butat8:56 am thatday,H aring told the courtclerk and Twin Trees'scounselthatshe would notbepresentbecause she lived in lndiana,washaving car trouble,and f'could notafford to fly to Virginia and renta caron such shortnotice.''ECF No.5-2,atl/.ludgeHouffthenenteredanorderditecéngHaringtoproducetherequested recordsin hercapacity aspresidentofO ld Town!ECF N o.7-5,at1-2. TwinTreesflledamodon qatergranted)forahearingtodeterminewhetherHadng had com plied with the orderforproduction on D ecem ber11,2017.ECF N o.7,at3.The m orning ofthe hearing,H aring inform ed the cout'tclerk and Twin Trees'scounselthatshe wouldnotattendthehearingbecauseshehad justflled forChapter11bankruptcywitlathe United StatesBanltruptcy CourtfortheEastezn D isttictofVitginia atAlexandriain O ld Town'sname.Ld-sat3-4.JudgeHouffcanceled theheatingand stayedpost-judgment proceedings.H aring failed to pay the ftling fee forherbanlm lptcy pedtion despite having beengranted an extension ofHmeto do so,and herpeééonwasdismissedwithoutprejudice on M ay31,2018.Id.at4. Aftetthisclismissal,ludgeHouffreschçduled thehearingto detetmineifHaringhad com plied with the orderto pzoduce O1d Town'sfinancialrecords.Thehearingw assetfor Apgust20,2018 at2:00 pm .ECF N o.7-8.Thatday,at1:10 pm ,H aring inform ed the court clerk and Twin Trees'scounselthatshehad flled anotherChapter11 bankmxptcy peddon in O 1d Town'snam e,and agnin the hearing wascanceled.ECF N o.7,at5.A ftera hearing and a seriesofm odonsfrom Twin Trees,H aring,and Coom es,thebanlrmzptcy courtconcluded thepetiéonhadbeenfiledinbadfaithanddismisseditwithprejudiceopSeptember10, 2018.In ze:O1dTownII,No.18-12856(Banltr.E.D.Va.Sept.10,2018). JudgeH ouffheld astam sconferenceon October15,20189Hatinghad been hospitalizedthatmorning and clid notattend.ECF No.1,atlz.ludgeHouffsetanother healing to detetm ineifH aring had com plied wit .h them oéon to producerecords.ECF N o. 7-13,at1-2.Haringflledwritten objecdonsarguingwhyludgeHouffcould notproceed with thism atter.ECF N o.5-3.O n D ecem ber20,2018,Twin Trees'scounselsentH aring a letterconflrnlingthehearing scheduled forlanuary7,2019beforeJudgeHouffat2:00pm and enclosed acopy ofthe originalm odon to produce.ECF N o.1-2,at31-32.2Hadng filed hernoticeofremovalthemorning ofJanuary7,2019.ECF No.1.Sheemailed Twin Trees's counseland thecouttclerk at12:08pm to inform them she would notbepresentatthe hearingastheremovalhadfTimmediatelyclivestegedj''thestatecolzrtffofjtuisdicdon (assurning forthesakeofargumentthatithad jurisdicéonin theflrstinstancel.''ECF No.714,at1.HaringrequestedJudgeHouffnothold thehearing,asshefçimaginegdjtheFederal Courtwouldentertainamotionforsanctionsupon rf' winTrees'scounsel)ifthatoccurred.'' LdaThehearingwascondnueduntilApril1,2019at2:00pm .SeeECF No.5,at15. Haringassertsthatthiscourthasoriginaljtztisdicdon overthestate-courtproceeding on llot.h federalquestion and divetsity grounds.ECF N o.1.TwZ Treestim ely Eled a m odon to rem and thism atterto statecotzrt.ECF N o.7.Apattfrom contesdng thegrounds forrem ovalon a substantivelevel,Twin Treesalso assertsthatH ating fûed herN otice of zludgeHouffalsostatedhewouldtakeupTwitlTrees'sffModonforSancdons...againstElizabethHaringCoomesftled October15.20187'ECFNo.7-13,butTwinTrees'scotmselwithdrew thismoûonattheJanuary7hearing.ECF No.56,at5. Rem ovalm ore than thitty daysaftershereceived the initialpleading,and even ifthiswere notso,proceedingscould notbezem oved when she flled hezN odce becausem ore than one yearhadpassedsinceTwinTreescommencedtheacéon.28U.S.C.j14469$(1)& (c)(1). In addressingtheparties'arguments,JudgeHoppeassumedwithoutdeciding that:(1) the sum m onsesto answerinterrogatoriesissued on April20,2016 are the inidalpleadingsin Twin Trees,LLC v.O ld Town Financial& Investm entSerdces,Inc.,N os.GV 15-1876-02 andGV15-1876-03;(2)thepost-judgmentproceedingisaçivilacéonwithinthemeaningof thegeneralremovalstatute;and(3)Haringisaffdefendant''orarealpattyininteresttothe action,who mayseekremovalunder28U.S.C.j1441(a).JudgeHoppesyatedin connecdon with these asskm p tions: l m ake these assum pdons,notbecause M s.H aring'sarp lm ents have any m erit, but for one reason only: to resolve a sttaightforward question about this court's subject-matter jurisdiction withoutwading into avezitable thicketofcontested factamlissuesthatwillnotchange theresult. ECFNo.15,at12.OnAplil1,2019,themagistratejudgeissuedaRepottand Recom m endadon concluding thatTwin Trees'sm otion to rem and should be gtanted asthe federalcourtlacked subjectmatterj'Atisdicéon'overthecase.SeeidaHatingflledher objecdonsto theReportandRecommendadon onApril18,2019.ECF No.20. I1. Rule72$)oftheFedetalRulesofCivilProcedurepe= itsapartytoffsezveandfzle specific,written objections':to amagistratejudge'sproposed findingsandrecommendadons within fourteen daysofbeing serv' ed with acopy ofthereport.Seealso28U.S.C.j 6369$(1).TheFolzrthCircuithasheldthatanobjecdngpartymustdosofçwith sufficient specifkitysoasreasonablytoalettthedistrictcokutofthetruegtoundfoztheobjecdon.'' UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d616,622 (4th Cir.2007),certdenied,127S.Ct.3032 (2007). To conclude otherwise would defeatthe pum ose of requiting objections.W ewould bepermitting aparty to appealany issue thatwasbefotethemagistzatejudge,regatdlessofthenatureand scopeofobjecéonsmadeto themagistratejudge'sreport.Either the distdctcourtwould then have to review every issue in the magisttate judge's proposed findings and recommendations or courts of appeals would be required to review issues that the disttictcolzrtneverconsidered.In eithercase,judicialresources would bewasted and thedistrictcourt'se/fectivenessbased on help from magistratejudgeswould beundernlined. 1. daThedistrictcourtmustdetermineX novo anyportion ofthemagistratejudge'sreport . andrecommendation to which aproperobjection hasbeen made.TThedistrictcourtmay accept,reject,ormodifytherecommendedclisposition;receivefilrtherevidence;orrettzrn themattettothemagistratejudgewithinstlazctions.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72q$(3)9accord28 U.S.C.j636($(1).dfGeneralobjecéonsthatmerelyreitezateargumentspresentedtothe magistratejudgelackthespecificityreqlliredunderRule72,andhavethesameeffectasa failuzetoobject,orasawaiverofsuchobjection.''Moonv.BG Techs.,lnc.,742F.Supp. 2d 827,829 (W .D.Va.2010)(citingVene v.Asttue,539 F.Supp.2d 841,845 (W .D.Va. 2008)),aff'd,498F.App'x 268 (4th Cir.2012);seealso Thomasv.Am,474 U.S.140,154 (1985(3))rfrllhestatutedoesnotrequirethejudgetoreview anissue2:novoifno objecdonsareftled.'l. Further,objectionsthatonlyrepeatargumentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgeate consideredgeneralobjectionstotheentitetyofthezeportandrecqmmendaéon.SeeVene , 539 F.Supp.2d at845.Asthecolzrtnoted in y-çs-e-y: Allowingalitigantto obtainA novoreview ofherentirecaseby merelyreformatdnganeatlierbriefasan objectionfdmakgesjthe inidalreference to the m agistrate useless.The Sm ctions ofthe districtcourtareeffectively duplicated as130th them agisttateand thedistrictcourtperform identicaltasks.Thisduplicadon oftim e andeffortwastesjudicialresourcesratherthan savingthem,and nm scontrary to the pum osesofthe M agistratesAct.''H oward gv.Sec' ofHea1th & Human Servs.l,932 F.2d (5051,109 g(6th Cir.1991)1. 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A partywho reiterateshispreviouslyraised argum entswillnotbe given frthesecond biteattheapple g)heseeks.''ld.Instead,there-filedbriefwillbetreated asageneralobjecdon,wllichhasthesameeffectasafailuretoobject.1d. 111. Federalcourtsarecourtsoflimitedjtzrisdicéon.TfT'hethresholdqueséonin anymatterbroughtbeforeafederalcourtiswhetherthecourthasjurisdiction toresolveihe controversyinvolved.''17t .h StteetAssoc..LLP v.M arkellnt'llns.Co.Ltd.,373 F.Supp.2d . 584,591(E.D.Va.2005).Section 1441(a)ofTitle28oftheUnited StatesCodepe= itsa defendantto rem ove an acdon to afederaldistzictcotzrtiftheplaintiffcould havebrought theactionin federalcourtoriginally.28U.S.C.j1441(a).Thepartyseekingremovalbears theburden ofestablishing federaljurisdicdon,and becauseremovaljurisdicdon raises signiticantfederalism concerns,therem ovalstam tem ustbe strictly consttued.M ulcahe v. ColumbiaOrganicChem.Co.,Inc.,29F.3d148,151(4thCir.1994).fflffederaljurisclicdon isdoubtful,a rem and isnecessary.''Id. Thecourtwillflrstaddressapzelim inary m atterofunderwllich stattzteH aring removed tlliscase.Haringargtzesin herobjectionsthatludgeH oppeezredby consideting removalpursuanttojj1331,1332,and1441,whensheremovedptusuantto j1446q$(3). 8 ECFNo.20,at2.Section14469$(3)providesthat,ifacaseisnotirlidallyremovable,a nodce ofrem ovalm ustbe flled within 30 daysKfafterzeceiptby the defendant,thtough service orotherwise,ofacopy ofan am ended pleading,m oéon,order,orotherpaper from which itm ay flrstbeasceztzned thatthe caseisone which isorhasbecom erem ovable.''28 U.S.C.j14469$(3).Saringcannotusej14469$(3)independentlyofanyotherbasisfor federalsubjectmatterjurisdicéon.Onitsface,j1446($(3)doesnotprovideanindependent basisforrem oval,butinstead providesdefendantswith an avenue to rem ove acasethatw as notrem ovableatthetimeofinitialSlingbutbecom esremovablelater.Seei. daThiscan occtzrwith thesevering orwithdrawalofan in-state party orwith theansw ering of intertogatoriesrevealing aunique basisofrem oval.See H urle v.CBS Co .,648 Fed. App'x.299,*303(4thCit.May6,2016)(findingthatremovalwithin30daysofreceiying answerstointerrogatoriesrevealingremovabilityunderfederal-officerjurisdiction).W hen suchaneventdoesoccur,j14469$(3)providesdefendantswith themeanstoremoveacase even ifthe originalcom plaintwasfûed m ore than 30 daysbefore the new citcum stances arO Se. Secdon 14469$(3)doesnot,however,provideameansofcitcumvendngthewellpleaded com plaintrule orthetequirem entofcompletediversity.To the extentH aring arguedinherobjectionsthatj14469$(3)providedherwithanindependentbasisof removal,herobjecdon isOVERRULED. A. ln hernoticeqfremoval,Haring assertstwo basesoffederalsubjectmatter jurisdiction:federalquesdon jlnrisdicdon anddiversityofcidzensllip jurisdicéon.ECF No.1, 9 at1-2.JudgeHoppeconcludedthatneithezwasptesentintlnismattez.ECF No.15,at16. Theçourtwilladdressthemagistratejvdge'sfinclings,andHaring'sobjecéons,oneachbasis ofjurisdicdoninturn,beginningwithfederalquestionjurisclicéonunderj1331. Federaldistrictcourtshaveoriginaljurisdictionoverffallcivilactionsarisingunder theConstituéon,laws,ortteatiesoftheUnitedStates.''28U.S.C.j1331.TheSupreme Courthasstated thatacasearisesunderfederallaw within the' m eaningofj 1331ffifawellpleaded com plaintestablisheseitherthatfederal1aw createsthe causeofacdon ozthatthe plaiptiff'srightto reliefnecessarily dependson resolution ofa substantialquestion offedetal lam ''Em izeHealthchoiceAssutance Inc.v.Mcveih,547U.S.677,689-90(2006) > ' (quotingFranclliseTaxBd.v.Constr.LaborersVacation TrustforS.Cal..463U.S.1,27-28, (1983)).Haringassertsthiscourthasoriginaljutisdicdonoverthestatecout'tproceeding because the ffplaintiff'sstate-law claim raisesa disputed and substandalquestion offederal law,itinvolvesConstittztionalquestions,gand)theinterpretaéon ofFederallawsy''including thebanknlptcycodeandtheAmericnswithDisabilidesAct(<çADA'').ECF No.1,at1-2. Haring flltthercbimedin hernodceofremovalthattlaismatterTfimplicategsj signifkantfederalissues'?because(1)TwinTreesallegedlyflledthesummonseswhile Hazingwasprotected byan automaticstayunderfederalbankruptcylaw;(2)JudgeHouff violated theA DA w hen he declined to conénue courthearingsasazeasonable accommodation forHaring'sallegedlydisablingmedicalconditions;and (3)bothJudge H ouffand Twin Têees'scounselhaveviolated H aring'sdue processrightsby notgiving adequate nodce ofhearingsand courtorders.See enerall ECF N o.1-3,at10-11.H aring also argued çom plete preem pdon ofthe case becausefedeialcolzrtshave çTexclusive jurisdictionoverbankruptcymatters''andthereisadisputeaboutwhetherTwinTrees violated11U.S.C.j362(a)whenitffflledtheInterrogatoriesttyingtoenforceajudgment againstherwholly owned com ozation while shewasprotected by theautom aéc stay of bankfnlptcy.''ECF No.10,at4.JudgeHoppefoundtheseargumentsto befrivolous: The factthatquestions of federal1aw happened to com e up in state-courtlitigationisnotenough to conferoriginalj'lrisclicéon over the acdon- rather, <Ta plaintiff's ability to establish the necessary elem entsofhisstate1aw clqim sm ustrise orfallon the resolution of a queséon of federal1aw .7'Pinne v.N olda lnc., 402F.3d430,449(4thCir.2005)(cidngMerrellDow Pharm.v. Thom son,478 U.S.804,813 (1986)).Twin Trees's state-law clnims(otrequests)are tooted in Virginia'slaw regulating civil post-judgmentproceedingsin itsstate coutts.SeeVa.Code jj 8.01-506,16.1-103.ffA.tbest,themattersL M s.Hadnglclnimsare federalquesdonsm ay bedefenses''to enforcing the state cotzrt's judgmentagainst O1d Towh,drand therefore,undez the wellpleaded complzntrule,gthose)mattersarenotapropezbasisfor federalquestionjurisdiction.''Fastmetrix Inc.v.I' TT Co .,924 F.Supp.2d669,674 (E.D.Va.2013)(citingCate illar,482U.S. at 393).M oreover,M s.Haring'sintroduction ofissues under federallaw have no bearing on the necessary elem ents ofTwin Trees's state law clnim . ECF No.15,at12-13.JudgeHoppeconcluded thatf'Twin Trees'sinidalpleadingitselfdoes notpresenta federalquestiony''butisinstead dfm erely am echarlism ,created by statelaw,to aidintheenforcementofamoneyjudgmententeredagainstOldTownonTwinTrees's ptzre state-law clsim forunlawfuldetainer.''ECF N o.15,at12. InherobjectionstotheReportandRecommendation,HaringaEegesshefltst ascertained the case had becom erem ovableon D ecem ber20,2018with the service ofTwin Tzees'sm otion thatH aring,as'O 1d Tow n'spresident,produceO ld Tow n's hnancialrecords, andthatthismotionpernnittedhertoremoveunderj1446q$(3).ECFNo.20,at4.She clnimsthatludgeHoppedid notconsiderTwin Ttees'smodon asabasisforremovaland thuserred in llisconclusions.Id.at3. Thereisnothing in Twin Trees'sm otion forproducéon thatrenderstllism atter rem ovable.The m otion isnotan am ended pleading presenting a federalquestion;the m oéon doesnotrevealtheinvolvem entofa federalofhcerorelinainate anondiverse partp SeeECF N o.1-2,at33-34.H aring allegesthatthe m otion raisesquestionsunder banktnaptcy law and theA DA .ECF N o.1,at2.Thatthesum m onsesreference H aring's banlçtnlptcy case and herm otion foran A DA accom m odation doesnotinvoke federal questionjurisclicdon.ECF No.20,at3.SeeOrmetCo .v.OlnioPowerCo.,98F.3d799, 806(4t. h Cir.1996)(f<Inorderforacaseinwhichthecauseofactionisnotfederallycreated to arise underfedetallaw,...the federalinterestatstake mustbesubstantial;fthe m ere pzesence ofa federalissuein a state cause ofaction doesnotautom aécally conferfederal- questionjurisdicéon.'''(citaéononnitledl).AsJudgeHoppefound,thesummonstoanswet interrogatoriesisTfm erely am echanism ,created by statelaw,to aid in theenforcem entofa moneyjudgmententeredagainstO1dTownonTwinTrees'spurestate-law cbim for unlawfuldetainen''ECF No.15,at12.Haring'sobjection toJudgeHoppe'sconclusion on : whetherthiscaseitwokesfederalqueséon jutisdicéon isOVERRULED. B. Haringalso assertsthatthiscotuthasjurisdicdon thzough diversityofcitizensllip,as establishedby j1332.Section 1332oftheUnited StatesCodeprovidesthatfederalcourts havesubjectmatterjurisdiction overacéonsin wllich thematterin controversyexceedsthe sum of$75,000andthedisputeisbetweencitizensofdifferentstates.28U.S.C.j1332.'Fhe stam tezeqlpit'esfffcom plete diversity ofcitizenshipy'''Carden v.Arkom aA ssoc.,494 U .S. 185,187 (1990),between ffrealand Cubstandalpardesto thecontroversyy''Navarro Sav. Ass'nv.Lee,446U.S.458,460(1980).tTlaisTcompletediversity'rule,whencoupledwith otherrules,m akesitclifficultfora defendantto rem ovea caseifa nondiverse defendanthas beenpartytothesuitpriortoremoval.'?Ma esv.Ra o ort,198F.3d457,461(4thCir. 1999).Haringassertsthattlziscout'thasjkzrisdicdon on thesegroundsastheamountin conttoversyexceeds$75,000andthepàrtiesarediversebecauseOldTownisffdefunct''(and besideswhichisneithernecessarynorindispensableto thisacéon)andbecauseHaring herselfnow residesin Pennsylvania.ECF N o.20,at6 & 26.Twin Treesassertsin itsm otion to rem and thatthelegalenétiesTwin Tzeesand O 1d Town w ere bot.h citizensofVirginia when the suitwasfiled in state couzt,and theam ountin controvetsy issipaificantly lessthan $75,000.ECF No.7.JudgeHoppeagreedwith thedefendants;thecourtwillconsiderthis matterinlightofHaring'sobjecdons. Thecourtneed notenterinto an analysisofwhetherH aring m oved to Pennsylvania forthepum ose ofcreating com plete diversity,ozwhetherHaring haslegally changed hez citizensllip by changing herresidency.Atthetim e oftheinitialpleading,H aring wasa residentandacitizenofVirginia;TwinTreeswasandisaciézenofVirginia.AsJudge H oppepointed outin hisReportand Recom m endation,H aring m ustdem onsttateby a preponderance ofthe evidence,Zoroastrian Ctr.& D arb-E-M ehrofM etro.W ash..D .C.v. Rustam Guiv Found.ofN.Y.,822F.3d739,748 (4th Cir.2016),thattherealpartiesin interestto the state-courtaction werecom pletely diverse ffboth atthedm e the action w as originally comm encedin thestatecourtand atthetimeofftlingthe gnoticeqforrem oval,'' Rowlandv.Patterson,882F.3d97,101(4thCir.1989).HaringandTwinTreeswereln0th citizensofVirgirziawhen tlnisaction wascommenced;Hazingcannotestablish jurisdiction underj1332now. H aving found an absenceofcom plete dlversity,the courtneed notassessthe am ount in controversy requirem entofdiversityofcidzenship.H ow ever,asthiselem entwas adclressedinbothludgeHoppe'sRepoztandRecommendadonandHaring'sobjecdons,the courtwillmakeafindingasto whethertheamountin controversyexceeds$75,000.Judge H oppe found that,becauseTwin Treesastheplaintiffin thism atterincluded agood faith demand forasum certain in itsinidalpleadingsof$6,777.34,thisamountisdeemedby statutetobetheamountincontroversy.ECFNo.15,at14.See28U.S.C.j1446(q)(2). JudgeHoppefgthetrtzled,cozrectly,thatHazing'saEegation thatshemaysueformorethan $75,000in thef'utaredoesnotaffectthedeterminaéon oftheamountin controvetsyin tllis case.J-d.aTheamountin controversy doesnotapproach $75,000,1etaloneexceedit. Haring clnimsin herobjecéonsthattheamountin controversyisnotlimited tothe amountalleged in TwinTrees'sinitialpleading (inthiscase,thesummonses).ECF No.20,at 11.Sheclnimsthattllisptayerfotreliefisffcontradicted gbyqplsinéff'sprayersforreliefin separateaction gsic)basedon samecircumstances.''Id.Shealsoarguesthatshefiled suit againstTwinTreesonApril17,2019,andludgeHoppefailed to considertheeconoM cand emotionalinjuriesshewillbepursuingin thisrelated suit.SeeCoomesv.Twin Treesetal., N o.2019-07264.H aring finally pointsto thepossibility ofattorneys'feesand sancdons,in pardculardueto Twin Trees'sSeptem ber 10,2018 M otion for Sancdons.3SeeECF N o.5-6, Again,therem ovability ofacaseffdepepdsupon the stateofthepleadingsand the record atthe ;m e oftheapplication forrem oval,''Alabam a GreatS.R .Co.v.Thom son, 200U.S.206,216(1906),andiftheinitialpleadingallegesaspeciik amountofdamagesin good faith,thatsum isdeem ed to be the am ountin conttoversy,Francis#.Allstate lns.Co., 709F.3d362,367 (4th Cir.2013).A partycannotaltertheamountin controversybyapostremovalfiling.SeePorscheCarsN.Am.,Inc.v.Porsche.net,302F.3d 248,255-56(4th Cir. 2002)(TT...acotzrtdeterminestheexistenceofdiversityofjIltisdicéon atthetimetheaction isfied,regardlessoflaterchangesin originally crucialfactssuch asthe pardes'citizenslnip or theamountin controversy.').Costsand intetestsatenotincludedin thiscalctTlation,idx,nor areattorney'sfees,unlessthe feesare provided forby contractorastataztem andatesor perrnitstheirpayment,idaat368.Neitherc/cumstanceapplieshere.Itstandstoreason that ifattozney'sfeesare notincluded in calculaéon ofthe am ountin controversy,neitherisa potentialaw ard forsancdons. Haring'sobjecdonsareOVERRULED. IV. Fozthereasonsexplained above,Haring'sobjecdonsto theReportand Recommendadon,ECF No.20,areOVERRULED,andludgeHoppe'sReportand Recomm endadon,ECF N o.15,isAD O PTED in itstotality. 5TwinTreesclnimstohavewithdrawnthismoéon,ECFNo.5-6,at5)Haringarguesthisocctlrredatastatecourthearing aftershe had removed the case,divesting the state cout' tofjtuisdicdon,ECF No.20,8-9.Forpurposesofthis determinadon,thequeséon ofwhetherthem odon for sancdonshasbeen withdzawn isirrelevant. Twin TreesM odon,ECF N o.7,isGR AN TED .Thism attezisREM AN D ED to state couêt. A n appropriate O rderwillbe entered thisday. Entered:Tllis ay ofM ay,2019 ' /+/ .' . NlichaelF. t ans Chief 'ted Stat Distdctludge .
]]>
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.
