United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
CHRISTOPHER M. HUNT, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANIES, ALLBERTELLI LAW, and CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER
RICHARD W. STORY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
case comes before the Court following its Order to Show Cause
as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. After reviewing the record, the
Court enters the following Order.
Background
Plaintiff
filed this case in the Superior Court of DeKalb County,
Georgia on May 2, 2017. (Dkt. [3-1].) Defendants Nationstar
Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”)
(collectively “Defendants”) removed the case to
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. [1].) In
doing so, they pointed out that Defendant Allbertelli Law is
a potential citizen of Georgia. The Court therefore ordered
the parties to show cause as to why this case should not be
remanded due to lack of diversity and stayed all proceedings
pending the Court's ruling on the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction. (Order, Dkt. [5].)
Despite
initial confusion as to the entity referred to as Allbertelli
Law in the Complaint, it is now clear that Plaintiff refers
to The Albertelli Firm, P.C. (“Albertelli”), a
Georgia professional corporation. As Plaintiff is a citizen
of Georgia, Albertelli's presence in this suit defeats
diversity and deprives the Court of subject matter
jurisdiction unless Defendants can show that Albertelli was
fraudulently joined.
Discussion
I.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A.
Legal Standard
A
defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court
if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the case.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over a removal action when it does not
have “original jurisdiction over the plaintiff's
claims.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Original jurisdiction
under § 1441 arises if there is diversity of citizenship
or the complaint presents a federal question. “The
district court may remand a case sua sponte for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Corp.
Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d
1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009). “Federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption against
the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all
uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved
in favor of remand.” Russell Corp. v. Am. Home
Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001).
“[T]he burden is on the party who sought removal to
demonstrate that federal jurisdiction exists.”
Friedman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 410 F.3d 1350, 1353
(11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kirkland v. Midland Mortg.
Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1281 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001)).
B.
Analysis
“Fraudulent
joinder is a judicially created doctrine that provides an
exception to the requirement of complete diversity.”
Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284,
1287 (11th Cir. 1998). It can be established “when
there is no possibility that the plaintiff can prove a cause
of action against the resident (non-diverse) defendant”
or “when there is outright fraud in the plaintiff's
pleading of jurisdictional facts” in order to defeat
diversity jurisdiction. Id. The removing party has
the burden of showing one of these two circumstances by clear
and convincing evidence. Henderson v. Wash. Nat'l
Ins. Co., 454 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006). If
fraudulent joinder has been established, the Court
“must ignore the presence of the non-diverse defendant
and deny any motion to remand the matter back to state
court.” Id.
To
determine whether fraudulent joinder exists, the Court must
look to the complaint at the time it was removed, as well as
any affidavits and deposition transcripts submitted by the
parties. Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d
1368, 1380 (11th Cir. 1998). If there exists “even
a possibility that a state court would find that the
complaint states a cause of action against any one of the
resident defendants, the federal court must find that the
joinder was proper and remand the case to the state
court.” Triggs, 154 F.3d at 1287 (quoting
Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440 (11th
Cir. 1983)). “The plaintiff need not have a winning
case against the allegedly fraudulent defendant; he need only
have a possibility of stating a valid cause of
action in order for the joinder to be legitimate.”
Id. The Court evaluates a plaintiff's claims
under the state's pleading standards, not the standard
for evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Stillwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 663 F.3d 1329, 1334
(11th Cir. 2011). The Court must accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and “construe them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Henderson, 454 F.3d at 1281 (quoting Simmons v.
Sonyika, 394 F.3d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir. 2004)).
Looking
solely at Plaintiff's claims against Albertelli, the
Court concludes that the Complaint does not state a cause of
action against Albertelli that would survive dismissal in
state court. Under Georgia's notice pleading standard,
all that is required is that “the pleading gives fair
notice and states the elements of the claim plainly and
succinctly.” Stillwell, 663 F.3d at 1334
(quoting Carley v. Lewis, 472 S.E.2d 109, 110-11
(Ga.Ct.App. 1996)). “[P]leadings are to be construed
liberally and reasonably” and are to “serve only
the purpose of giving notice to the opposing party of the
general nature of the contentions of the pleader.”
Racette v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 S.E.2d 457, 465
(Ga.Ct.App. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).
As it
relates to Albertelli, the Complaint appears to allege that
Albertelli lied on its application to the Secretary of State
with regards to the identity and location of its registered
agent. (Compl., Dkt. [3-1] ¶ 2, at 3-4.) As a result,
Plaintiff was unable to serve Albertelli in its prior
litigation, resulting in damages, both monetary and
emotional, to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 3, at 4-6.)
Since, Plaintiff alleges, Albertelli is unauthorized to do
business in Georgia due to its application, any foreclosures
it participated in were illegal. (Id. ΒΆ 3, at
5.) ...