United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
CAROL A. WHITLEY, Plaintiff,
PAUL D. BORJA, et al., Defendants.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has
examined the basis upon which this matter was removed and
concludes that the Court is without subject matter
jurisdiction. The matter is therefore remanded to the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.
a Missouri citizen, filed the instant action in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against Defendants on
August 7, 2018. Plaintiff's petition is an action to
quiet title. Defendants removed the case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446 on the bases of both federal question
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants gives as
grounds for federal question jurisdiction a reference in the
petition to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601,
et seq. As for diversity jurisdiction, Defendants
claim that the only non- fraudulently named defendant is
Flagstar Bank, FSB, which is a citizen of Michigan.
defendant may remove a state law claim to federal court only
if the action originally could have been filed there.”
In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619
(8th Cir. 2010) (citing Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d
1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005)). The removing defendant bears the
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. Altimore v. Mount Mercy
Coll., 420 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2005). “All
doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor
of remand to state court.” In re Prempro, 591
F.3d at 620 (citing Wilkinson v. Shackelford, 478
F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2007)). A case must be remanded if,
at anytime, it appears that the district court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c);
question jurisdiction extends only to ‘civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.'” Mamot Feed Lot and Trucking v.
Hobson, 539 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1331). “‘Removal based on federal
question jurisdiction is governed by the well pleaded
complaint rule: jurisdiction is established only if a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's
properly pleaded complaint.'” McLain v.
Andersen Corp., 567 F.3d 956, 963-964 (8th Cir 2009)
(quoting Pet Quarters, Inc. v. Depository Trust and
Clearing Corp., 559 F.3d 772, 779 (8th Cir. 2009)).
of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
requires an amount in controversy greater than $75, 000 and
complete diversity of citizenship among the litigants.
“Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no
defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any
plaintiff holds citizenship.” OnePoint Solutions,
LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007).
petition is titled “Quiet Title Suit in the Nature of a
Common Law Claim.” Therein, she states “[I] am
moving this action pursuant to the authorities of Article I,
Section 9 Missouri Constitution (1821) to Quiet Title against
the Wrongdoers cf. V.A.M.S. § 527.150.” V.A.M.S.
§ 527.150 states in pertinent part:
Any person claiming any title, estate or interest in real
property, whether the same be legal or equitable, certain or
contingent, present or in reversion, or remainder, whether in
possession or not, may institute an action against any person
or persons having or claiming to have any title, estate or
interest in such property, whether in possession or not, to
ascertain and determine the estate, title and interest of
said parties, respectively, in such real estate, and to
define and adjudge by its judgment or decree the title,
estate and interest of the parties severally in and to such
the petition is styled as a state-law action to quiet title,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim arises under
federal law due to Plaintiff's mention of the Truth in
Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, (“TILA”) in
her petition. Plaintiff states in her petition that she
mailed a notice of rescission to Defendants which was
“supported by” TILA. Defendants claim that
“it appears that Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants
failed to recognize rescission of her mortgage loan in
violation of [TILA.]”
Court finds this argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff does not
allege a claim under TILA, nor does she offer fact statements
relating to the elements of a TILA claim. Evidently, none of
the Defendants are the original mortgagee/creditor. The sole
claim alleged ...