O'Neal v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 April 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-03712-JMC
• Parties: Harry O'Neal, Plaintiff, v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Harry O'Neal, Plaintiff, v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-03712-JMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

April 18, 2016

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court pursuant to Plaintiff Harry O'Neal's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand the case to the Barnwell County (South Carolina) Court of Common Pleas. (ECF No. 9). Defendant Quicken Loans, Inc. ("Defendant"), opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and asks the court to retain jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF PENDING MOTION

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint for a non-jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas in Barnwell County, South Carolina. (ECF No. 1-1 at 7). Plaintiff alleges that he obtained a real estate loan with Defendant.¹ (Id. at 7 ¶5). Plaintiff further alleges that pursuant to South Carolina law, Defendant was required to determine Plaintiff's preference for legal counsel to assist him during the closing of the transaction. (Id. at 7 ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided him with a pre-populated Attorney/Insurance Preference Checklist, which prevented Plaintiff from choosing an attorney to represent him in the transaction. (Id. at 8 ¶¶ 8-13). According to Plaintiff,the deprivation of a meaningful choice as to the attorney to represent him in the transaction was unconscionable pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 37-10-105 (2016), 37-5-108 (2016). (Id. at 8 ¶14). Plaintiff requests that the court issue an order and grant relief pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 37-10-105(c). (Id. at 9 ¶ 21). Plaintiff further requests that the court asses a statutory penalty between $1,500.00 and $7,500.00. (Id. at 9 ¶ 22). Plaintiff also asserts that he is entitled to attorney's fees and costs from Defendant as permitted by statute. (Id. at 9 ¶ 23). For jurisdictional purposes, Plaintiff alleged that he is a citizen of the state of South Carolina, and Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of a state other than the state of South Carolina with a principal place of business in Michigan.² (ECF No. 1-1 at 8 ¶¶ 1, 2). Plaintiff did not specify an amount of damages in the Complaint, but prayed "for the relief set forth above, for attorney fees and the costs of this action, and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper, but in no event, for an amount greater than Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)." (Id. at 9).

On September 16, 2015, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal asserting that the court possessed jurisdiction over the matter because complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy requirement is met. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Defendant further asserted that removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (2012) because this action is within the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (2012). (Id.) Thereafter, on October 15, 2015, Plaintiff moved the court to remand the matter to state court on the basis "that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00 as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)." (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff further asserted that removal based on bankruptcy jurisdiction is not proper because there is no pending bankruptcy case. (Id.) Plaintiff also movedthe court to stay all matters related to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.³ (ECF No. 9). On January 7, 2016, Defendant filed opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Remand and Opposition to Defendant's Notice of Removal on March 4, 2016. (ECF No. 20). After being granted leave to do so by the court, Defendant filed a Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 23). A hearing on the Motion to Remand was held on April 7, 2016.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A defendant is permitted to remove a case to federal court if the court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2012). A federal district court has "original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between - (1) citizens of different States; . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2012). In cases in which the district court's jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of proving the jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See Strawn v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that in removing case based on diversity jurisdiction, party invoking federal jurisdiction must allege same in notice of removal and, when challenged, demonstrate basis for jurisdiction).

In determining the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, the court must examine the complaint at the time of removal. Thompson v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co., 32 F. Supp. 2d 847, 848 (D.S.C. 1999) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938)). Generally, "the sum claimed by a plaintiff in her complaint determines thejurisdictional amount, and a plaintiff may plead less than the jurisdictional amount to avoid federal jurisdiction." Phillips v. Whirlpool Corp., 351 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (D.S.C. 2005) (citing, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 294 ("If [the plaintiff] does not desire to try his case in the federal court he may resort to the expedient of suing for less than the jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly entitled to more, the defendant cannot remove.")) (internal citations omitted). However, where a complaint includes a request for nonmonetary relief or a request for a money judgment in a state that permits recovery in excess of the amount demanded, the court can look to the notice of removal to determine the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A) (2012). If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a), then removal is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B).

Additionally, section 1332 requires complete diversity between all parties. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 267 (1806). Complete diversity requires that "no party shares common citizenship with any party on the other side." Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 461 (4th Cir. 1999). Because federal courts are forums of limited jurisdiction, any doubt as to whether a case belongs in federal or state court should be resolved in favor of state court. See Auto Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Interstate Agency, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1104, 1106 (D.S.C. 1981) (citations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Diversity Jurisdiction

There is no dispute that complete diversity exists in this matter. The parties dispute whether the amount in controversy requirement is met in order to support removal. Plaintiff moves to remand this matter to state court on the basis that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00. (ECF No. 9). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that because the ad damnum clause of thecomplaint limits the damages sought to $75,000.00, the amount in controversy cannot be met. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff seeks nonmonetary relief in the form of having the loan agreement declared unconscionable, and such relief would greatly exceed $75,000.00. Plaintiff submitted a Declaration regarding damages, wherein Plaintiff states that (1) the entire value of his claim does not exceed $75,000.00 and (2) Plaintiff will not seek or accept any relief or recovery greater than $75,000.00. (ECF No. 12-1 at 2 ¶ 7, 8).

Upon review, the court notes that Plaintiff did not specify an amount of damages in his complaint, but merely attempted to provide an estimate of the maximum amount of damages to which he might be entitled. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 9). Therefore, the court may interpret Plaintiff's stipulation as to damages as a clarification of the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks. See, e.g., Carter v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-00287-PMD, 2013 WL 3946233, at *3 (D.S.C. July 31, 2013) ("Defendant concedes that 'Plaintiff does not specify an amount of damages in her Complaint.' (Internal citation omitted.) The Court interprets Plaintiff's statements in her notarized affidavit as to the amount in controversy as a stipulation, clarifying that the total amount of damages sought by her Complaint is not more than $60,000.000[sic]."); Gwyn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 44, 46 (M.D.N.C. 1997) ("A post-removal stipulation or amendment of the complaint to allege damages below the jurisdictional amount will not destroy federal jurisdiction once it has attached. However, when facing indeterminate claims, . . . the court may consider a stipulation filed by the plaintiff that the claim does not exceed" the jurisdictional amount.) (Internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Though Plaintiff submitted a Declaration in an attempt to limit the maximum amount of damages sought, South Carolina law permits recovery in excess of the relief requested by Plaintiff. See Battery Homeowners Ass'n v. Lincoln Fin. Res., Inc., 422 S.E.2d 93, 95-96 (S.C. 1992) (quoting South Carolina Rule of CivilProcedure 54(c) which provides that a party shall be granted the relief to which it is entitled even if the relief was not demanded in the pleadings); Jones v. Bennett, 348 S.E.2d 365 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986) (noting that it was error for a trial judge to instruct a jury that it could not return a verdict in excess of the relief prayed for in accordance with SCRCP 54(c)); see also Cook v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., Civil No. 9:06-cv-01995, 2006 WL 2171130, at *2, n.2 (D.S.C. July 31, 2006) (noting that South Carolina does not limit damage awards to the amount specified in the pleadings). Thus, the court finds that...