After the mortgagee removed the suit to federal court rather than proceeding in state court, the mortgagor, in a pending foreclosure case, filed a motion to remand back to state court. The state court granted the motion because the parties were diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. In response, the mortgagee filed a Motion for a Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Remand Back to State Court.
In Wells Fargo USA Holdings, Inc. v. Carter, No. 4:24-cv-00288-P, 2024 WL 3628119, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136836 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2024) (opinion not yet released for publication), the court denied the mortgagee’s motion to remand based on its finding that the parties had diversity jurisdiction. The court noted its disapproval of the case’s removal to federal court as a “blatant attempt at forum shopping.” Additionally, it expressed doubts regarding the appropriateness of hearing this case in federal court due to a potentially inadequate amount in controversy requirement. It explained that Congress historically set this requirement to avoid petty controversies being heard in federal courts, but recently, it has ignored requests from various commentators for an increase in the amount in controversy requirement to better execute the goal of limiting cases heard in federal court. The last increase was in 1996, almost 30 years ago. If the requirement were increased to reflect inflation, the amount would be over $150,000. However, despite the court’s disapproval of forum shopping and the low amount in controversy requirements, because the parties in the case were diverse and the amount in controversy requirement was met, the jurisdiction in federal court was proper.
By Sara Williams: [email protected]
Edited By Callighan Ard: [email protected]
Edited By Ashley Boyce: [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott: [email protected]