United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MAHESH SHASTRY f/k/a MAHESH GOPALAKRISHNA and SURYAKALAR R. SHASTRY f/k/a SURYAKALA R. HOSANAGRA, Plaintiffs,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO WACHOVIA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR16, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge
for pretrial management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and a standing order of reference from Senior United States
District Judge A. Joe Fish. The undersigned issues the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation on the Court's subject matter
October 19, 2016, Plaintiffs Mahesh Shastry and Suryakala R.
Shastry filed a petition in the 68th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas. See Dkt. No. 1-5. On
October 24, 2016, they filed an amended petition.
See Dkt. No. 1-7. In this breach of contract and
quiet title action, Plaintiffs seek to stop Defendant U.S.
Bank National Association, as Successor Trustee to Wachovia
Bank National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2005-AR16, from foreclosing on their property. See
Id. They seek both monetary damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief. See id.
Bank removed the case to federal court on November 30, 2016
based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. See Dkt. No. 1.
Court has “an independent obligation to ensure that
[it] do[es] not exceed the scope of [its] subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v.
Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Accordingly, on
December 2, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to each
submit briefs to determine whether the Court has diversity
jurisdiction in light of the Supreme Court's recent
decision in Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods,
Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1012 (2016), and other recent decisions
following Americold. See Dkt. No. 4.
response, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, see
Dkt. No. 9, and U.S. Bank filed a response in opposition to
the motion to remand, see Dkt. No. 14.
Bank maintains that removal was proper and argues that it is
the citizenship of the trustee, U.S. Bank, that controls for
disagree and argue that, in this case, U.S. Bank, as trustee,
is a nominal party and that it is the citizenship of the
certificate holders in the trust that controls for diversity
undersigned now concludes that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction in this action and that the case should thus
proceed in federal court.
may remove an action from state court to federal court if the
federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the
action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have subject
matter jurisdiction over all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds $75, 000 and the parties are
completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are
not diverse “if one of the plaintiffs shares the same
citizenship as any one of the defendants.” Corfield
v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir.
determining if it has federal jurisdiction, the Court focuses
on the plaintiff's pleadings “as they existed at
the time of removal.” See Manguno v. Prudential
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir.
2002). But the court “may be required to survey the
entire record ... and base its ruling on the complaint, or
undisputed facts, and on its resolution of disputed
facts.” Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarrillas,
963 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir. 1992). Any “ambiguities are
construed against ...