Opinion
23-cv-01274-KAW
07-29-2024
ALEXIS BOISSIERE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR GSR MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3F, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RE: DKT. NO. 61
KANDIS A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 20, 2022, former Plaintiff Kanorn Boonkeut brought a breach of contract action in state court against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), related to Plaintiff Boonkeut's mortgage loan with a principal balance of $439,950. On March 20, 2023, Defendant Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.) On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff Boonkeut filed an amended complaint adding Plaintiff Alexis Boissiere as a party. (Dkt. No. 20.) On October 24, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Boonkeut's claims with prejudice, but allowed Plaintiff Boissiere to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 52.)
On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff Boissiere filed the operative complaint, asserting claims for “breach of agreement” and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the closure of Plaintiff Boissiere's accounts. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 28, 33, Dkt. No. 61.) Specifically, Plaintiff Boissiere alleges that when Defendant Wells Fargo learned of his involvement with Plaintiff Boonkeut's lawsuit, Defendant Wells Fargo closed accounts held by Plaintiff Boissiere, his wife, and his son, as well as his credit card and a safety deposit box. (SAC ¶¶ 26, 28.)
The operative complaint erroneously lists Plaintiff Boonkeut as a party, despite the Court's dismissal of her claims with prejudice.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, it is not apparent the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity requires the parties to: (1) be in complete diversity and (2) the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C § 1332. The complaint does not appear to satisfy either requirement (and indeed fails to identify a basis for jurisdiction altogether).
First, the complaint fails to state the citizenship of the parties. Second, the complaint does not appear to state facts that would demonstrate the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Indeed, the account that belonged to Plaintiff Boissiere had only $58 in it, which Plaintiff Boissiere admits was returned. (SAC ¶ 28.) While Plaintiff Boissiere alleges the loss of use of a safety deposit box and the drop of his credit score from 800 to 724, it is unclear how these would amount to $75,000 in damages. (SAC ¶¶ 28, 35.) For example, Plaintiff Boissiere suggests he may have lost opportunities for consumer loans and mortgages, but does not allege that he actually sought and were rejected for any loans and mortgages. (SAC ¶ 35.) Likewise, Plaintiff alleges emotional distress from his uncertain “financial security” and “poor and embarrassing treatment at the local branch,” but again provides no specific monetary information or jury verdicts that would suggest he could establish the $75,000 threshold. (SAC ¶ 35.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) states that if the court determines at any time during litigation that it lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action or remand the action back to state court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to show cause, within two weeks of the date of this order, why this case should not be remanded back to state court due to the failure to establish diversity jurisdiction in the complaint. The parties' response shall be no more than ten pages each, not including relevant supporting documentation.
In the alternative, the parties may stipulate to remand the case to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.