Keyes v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC
| Decision Date | 15 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:20-cv-02649 (NLH)(KMW),1:20-cv-02649 (NLH)(KMW) |
| Parties | KRISTINE KEYES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE,LLC; U.S. BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS CLAIMED SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; SHERIFF OF CAMDEN COUNTY; AND RAS CITRON LAW OFFICES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
JOSHUA LOUIS THOMAS
JOSHUA L. THOMAS & ASSOCIATES
225 WILMINGTON WEST CHESTER PIKE
SUITE 200
CHADDS FORD, PA 19317
Attorney for Plaintiff Kristine Keyes.
FRANCESCA ANN ARCURE
MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE, LLC
ISELIN, NJ 08830
Attorney for Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.
JOY HARMON SPERLING
STEPHEN ROBERT CATANZARO
DAY PITNEY LLP
1 JEFFERSON RD
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. As Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.
Attorney for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. As Claimed Successor in Interest to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
RAS CITRON, LLC
SUITE 150
FORT WASHINGTON, PA 19034
Attorney for Defendant RAS Citron Law Offices.
This matter arises out of a 2015 foreclosure action in New Jersey state court. Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Kristine Keyes's motions to remand and for an extension of time, (ECF No. 16 and 22), motions to dismiss filed by each Defendant except the Sheriff of Camden County, (ECF No. 9, 13, 17, and 21), and the motion for sanctions filed by Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") and U.S. Bank, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. (ECF No. 25). For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiff's motions to remand and for an extension of time will be denied, Defendants' various motions to dismiss will be granted with prejudice, and the motion for sanctions filed by MERS and U.S. Bank will be granted.
On August 8, 2006, Plaintiff executed a Note in favor of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. To secure that Note, she also executed a mortgage in favor of Defendant MERS, as nominee for Countrywide, on a property at 7236 Walnut Avenue, Pennsauken Township, New Jersey 08109. . On May 9, 2011, MERS assigned the mortgage to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, and the mortgage was recorded in the Camden County Clerk's Office on May 16. Nearly two years later on March 28, 2013, the BAC assignment was corrected, with the mortgage assigned by Countrywide to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. That assignment was then recorded on June 26, 2013. (ECF No. 1-1 at Ex. B).
Almost six months later, on December 17, 2013, Nationstar filed an action in mortgage foreclosure in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, due to Plaintiff's alleged default on the mortgage. (ECF No. 9-6 Ex. D). Plaintiff was personally served with the complaint in that action on July 1, 2014. After Plaintiff failed to respond or make an appearance in the action, a final judgment of foreclosure was entered on July 16, 2015. (ECF No. 1-1 at 7; ECF No. 9-8 Ex. F).
On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 voluntary bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to which activity relatedto the foreclosure was automatically stayed. (ECF No. 9-17 Ex. O). That action was dismissed on March 21, 2017, due to Plaintiff's "failure to file a feasible plan, income and/or budget statement." Id. at 5. The case was reinstated on April 18, 2017, and ultimately dismissed again on January 25, 2018. Id. at 8. On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed another voluntary bankruptcy petition in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. (ECF No. 9-18 Ex. P). On March 20, 2019, the Bankruptcy Judge entered an order vacating the automatic stay. Id. About a month later, on April 17, 2019, the property was finally sold at a sheriff's sale pursuant to the original foreclosure action, to Defendant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. (ECF No. 13-5 Ex. I). The second bankruptcy action was later dismissed on May 8, 2019. It appears that at some point following this dismissal, Plaintiff hired Joshua Thomas as counsel.
A few months later, on November 6, 2019, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas, filed a motion to vacate the final judgment and the sheriff's sale and a motion to stay eviction in the original foreclosure action. (ECF No. 13-5 Ex. J and K). These motions raised a series of arguments regarding the effectiveness of the mortgage, its assignment, and the ability of Nationstar to foreclose on it. See id. The motion to staywas summarily denied the next day, and the motion to vacate was later withdrawn. Id. at Ex. L and M.
The very same day that Plaintiff's motion to stay eviction was denied, she filed a third bankruptcy petition, through a separate attorney from Mr. Thomas, in the same bankruptcy court. (ECF No. 9-19 Ex. Q). U.S. Bank responded by filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay associated with the bankruptcy petition on December 3, 2019. Id. On January 7, 2020, the Bankruptcy Judge granted U.S. Bank's motion, and issued an order that included a provision stating that any future bankruptcy filings by Plaintiff would not stay the Foreclosure Action. Id. at ECF 32. The third bankruptcy action was then dismissed a few weeks later, on January 23, 2020. Id.
Finally, Plaintiff, through Mr. Thomas, filed the present Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County on February 18, 2020, raising many of the same arguments she had made in her previous motions to stay eviction and to vacate the foreclosure action in the state chancery court, as well as directly related claims under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). A week later, she then filed yet another motion to stay eviction in the original foreclosure action before the chancery court, but the motion was eventually withdrawn. (ECF No. 13-6 at Ex. N, O, and P).
The case was then removed by Nationstar on March 11, 2020 and assigned to this Court. (ECF No. 1). On March 24, MERS and U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, (ECF No. 9), which was followed shortly after by a motion to dismiss filed by Nationstar. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff opposed both motions on April 9, and simultaneously moved for remand back to the state court, (ECF No. 16), which Defendants opposed. (ECF No. 19 and 20). The same day that Plaintiff opposed the first two motions to dismiss, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a third motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was followed on May 13 with a fourth and final motion to dismiss filed by RAS Citron Law Offices. (ECF No. 17 and 21).
Although her deadline to oppose Bank of America's motion had passed several weeks earlier, Plaintiff then moved for an extension of time to respond to the latter two motions on May 18, (ECF No. 22), which Defendants opposed. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff to this date has not filed any brief opposing the latter two motions to dismiss. Finally, on June 23, MERS and U.S. Bank filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney, alleging they had brought frivolous claims, (ECF No. 25). A week after her deadline to oppose the motion for sanctions had passed, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. (ECF No. 27).
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The Court first addresses Plaintiff's motion to remand this action back to New Jersey state court. The federal removal statute permits a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to federal district court when the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Once the case has been removed, however, the court may nonetheless remand it to state court if the removal was procedurally defective or "subject matter jurisdiction is lacking." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Costa v. Verizon N.J., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 455, 458 (D.N.J. 2013). The removal statutes "are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand." Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 199) (citing Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch and Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987).
28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides the district courts with original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Generally, "determining whether a particular casearises under federal law turns on the 'well-pleaded complaint' rule." Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1983)). Under this rule, subject-matter jurisdiction as described under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may only be exercised when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 398-99) ( that because the plaintiff is "the master of the complaint," the well-pleaded-complaint rule enables him, "by eschewing claims based on federal law, ... to have the cause heard in state court").
Plaintiff has not put forth any legitimate arguments for remand, and accordingly her motion will be denied. First, Plaintiff confusingly and incorrectly argues that "Defendant Nationstar proffers only one basis for removal: the presence of diversity jurisdiction." (ECF No. 16 at 4). However, even a brief review of Nationstar's Notice of Removal makes entirely clear that the basis for removal was federal question jurisdiction, because the Complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial