Hahn v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Case No. 11-C-0261

• Court: United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Writing for the Court: LYNN ADELMAN
• Parties: LESTER HAHN AND CORINNE HAHN, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Docket Number: Case No. 11-C-0261
• Decision Date: 06 September 2011

LESTER HAHN AND CORINNE HAHN, Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 11-C-0261

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Dated: September 6, 2011

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Lester and Corinne Hahn have filed a complaint alleging that the defendants - various banks and mortgage companies - "engaged in an ongoing course of action designed to enrich themselves by inducing plaintiff to enter into a series of loans and mortgages, even though defendants knew that the loans were for amounts that plaintiff could not pay over a sustained period, and that the mortgages which secured the loans would likely be foreclosed upon, causing plaintiff to incur debt which he could not pay and to lose assets which he would otherwise have been able to retain." (Compl. ¶ 13.) Several defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). One of these defendants, Wells Fargo, has also moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In this opinion, I discuss Wells Fargo's motion insofar as it pertains to subject-matter jurisdiction.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." In their complaint, plaintiffs assert that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question

Page 2

jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). It is clear, however, that the court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332 because the parties are not completely diverse. Complete diversity means that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants. Smart v. Local 702 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009). The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are citizens of Wisconsin and that several of the defendants are citizens of Wisconsin. Thus, even though other defendants are not citizens of Wisconsin, I may not exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332.

The remaining question is whether I may exercise jurisdiction pursuant to...