Party Notice: JANE A ADAMS, et al vs. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC

On May 03, 2019 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Adams, Jane A, Adams, Wade P, and Rushmore Loan Management Services Llc, for PROPERTY in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
6/1 0/2019 4:31 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

Lafonda Sims
CAUSE NO. DC—19-06323

JANE A. ADAMS AND WADE P. ADAMS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff? §
§
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT §
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant § 191“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO US DISTRICT COURT

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-styled and numbered case has been

removed t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f Texas, Dallas Division,

pursuant to the attached Notice 0f Removal ﬁled in the U.S. District Court on June 10, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

SHAPIROSCHWARTZ, LLP

By: /s/ Reeves
Philip C.
Philip C. Reeves
State Bar N0. 24065959
13105 Northwest Freeway, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77040
Telephone: (713) 462-2565
Facsimile: (847) 879-4854
Email: phreeves@logs.com

Attorneys for Rushmore Loan Management
Services, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ihereby certify that 0n this 10th day 0f June, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was sent to:

Darwin McKee
Attorney at Law
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 209
Austin, Texas 78750
Via ECF
/s/ Philip C. Reeves
Philip C. Reeves
Case 3:19-cv-01385-B Document 1 Filed 06/10/19 Page 1 of 6 PagelD 1

INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

JANE A. ADAMS AND WADE P. ADAMS, §
Plaintiﬁfs §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT §
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant §

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL

COMES NOW Defendant, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, and pursuant t0

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a), 1441 and 1446, gives notice that it hereby removes the action styled

Jane A. Adams and Wade P. Adams v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, Cause N0.

DC—19-06323 — In the 191“ Judicial District Court 0f Dallas County, Texas t0 the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Defendant provides the

following in support of its removal:

REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendant attaches to this Notice of Removal:

i) A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (Exhibit 1);

ii) A true and correct copy 0f the Docket Sheet for Cause N0. DC-19-
06323 (Exhibit 2);

iii) A true and correct copy 0f Defendant’s Original Answer ﬁled in
Cause N0. DC-19-06323 (Exhibit 3); and

iV) A and correct copy 0f the Dallas County Appraisal District
true
information for Property Account N0. 00000205582000000
(Exhibit 4).

2. This Court has original jurisdiction 0f this suit based upon the Court’s diversity

Page 1 0f 6
Case 3:19-cv-01385-B Document 1 Filed 06/10/19 Page 2 of 6 PagelD 2

jurisdiction pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). With certain limitations, any civil action brought

in a state court may be removed t0 the district court 0f the United States for the district and division

that encompasses the county wherein the action is pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Dallas

Division of the Northern District 0f Texas is the proper court for removal from a district court in

Dallas County, Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(1).

3. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the removing Defendant will promptly give

all parties written notice of the ﬁling of this Notice 0f Removal and will promptly ﬁle a notice 0f

removal With the Clerk 0f the 191“ Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas.

II.

REMOVAL IS TIMELY
4. Plaintiffs Jane A. Adams and Wade P. Adams ﬁled their Original Petition on May

3, 2019 but at n0 time have Plaintiffs requested citations be issued in this matter. Defendant has

not been served With process in this case and removal is timely pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §1446(b).

III.

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

A. Complete Diversity 0f Citizenship Exists

5. Jane A. Adams. Plaintiff, Jane A. Adams, was a citizen of Dallas County, Texas at

the time this action was ﬁled and remains a citizen of Dallas County. (Exhibit 1, § II).

6. Wade P. Adams. Plaintiff, Wade P. Adams, was a citizen 0f Dallas County, Texas

at the time this action was ﬁled and remains a citizen 0f Dallas County. (Exhibit 1, § II).

7. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC. Defendant Rushmore Loan

Management Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation Whose citizenship is

determined by its members. See Harvey v. Grey WolfDrilling C0., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir.

2008). The sole member of Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC is Roosevelt Management

Page 2 0f 6
Case 3:19-cv-01385-B Document 1 Filed 06/10/19 Page 3 of 6 PagelD 3

Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation. None 0f Roosevelt’s members are

citizens 0f the state 0f Texas. Accordingly, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC is not a

citizen of Texas for purposes 0f diversity jurisdiction.

B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.00

8. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition does not allege a speciﬁc amount in controversy, the

Petition demonstrates that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in value exclusive of interest

and costs. Plaintiffs seek to avoid enforcement of Defendant’s lien 0n property located at 5426

Morningside Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75206 (hereinafter the “Property”). According t0 the Dallas

County Tax Appraiser, the Property has a value of $521,690.00. Exhibit 4.

9. A court may determine that the removal is proper if it is facially apparent from the

petition that the claims are likely t0 exceed $75,000.00. Allen v. R & H. Oil & Gas Company, 63

F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995); see also White v. VCI U.S.A., Ina, 319 F.3d 672, 675 (5th Cir.

2003)(stating that to determine the amount in controversy, the court may consider actual damages,

exemplary damages and attorney’s fees). If the amount in controversy is not apparent from the

face 0f the petition, the court may rely 0n facts asserted in the removal notice that support a ﬁnding

of the requisite amount. Id.

10. “It is well established that ‘When equitable and injunctive relief is sought the

amount in controversy is measured by the value of the obj ect of the litigation,’ and ‘[t]he value 0f

that right is measured by the losses that will follow.”’ Berry v. Chase Home Fin, LLC, No. C-09-

116, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77124, 2009 WL 2868224, at *2-3 (SD. TeX. Aug. 27, 2009) (Rainey,

J.); Waller v. Prof'l Ins. Corp, 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961)(“When the validity 0f a

contract 0r a right to property is called into question in its entirety, the value of the property

controls the amount in controversy”).

Page 3 0f 6
Case 3:19-cv-01385-B Document 1 Filed 06/10/19 Page 4 of 6 PagelD 4

11. The Fifth Circuit and district courts in each district of the state hold that the amount

in controversy in suits seeking t0 avoid foreclosure is the value of the property that is the object of

the litigation. Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013); Green v. Bank

0f America, N.A., No. 4: 13CV92, 2103 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66320, at *4 (E.D. Tex. 2013);

McDonald v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust C0., 3:1 1-CV-2691-B, 2011 WL 6396628 (N.D. TeX. Dec.
20, 2011); Martinez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1047-48 (W.D.

Tex. 2010)(“[T]he value 0f the property is the object of the litigation for the purposes 0f

determining Whether the amount-in—controversy requirement has been met s0 long as the plaintiff

is seeking injunctive relief t0 prevent 0r undo the lender’s sale 0f the property”); Berry v. Chase

Home Finance, LLC, N0. C-09-1 16, 2009 WL 2868224, at *3 (SD. Tex. Aug. 27, 2009)(holding
that the value 0f declaratory and injunctive relief is the current value 0f the property, because

“[a]bsent judicial relief, Plaintiff could be divested 0f all right, title and interest t0 the Property”).

12. Because Plaintiffs seek to avoid enforcement of Defendant’s lien against the

Property, the amount in controversy is the value of the Property. The amount in controversy is at

least $521,690.00 —an amount that when combined With the damages claimed by Plaintiffs greatly

exceeds this Court’s jurisdictional minimum 0f $75,000.

13. There is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000.00. This Court has jurisdiction over all 0f Plaintiffs’ claims.

IV.
FEDERAL QUESTION

14. Plaintiffs’ suit includes claims against Defendant for Violations 0f the Real Estate

Settlement Practices Act. (Exhibit 1 at 2 [“Thus far, Defendant has violated the regulations adopted

t0 prevent massive foreclosures by ‘dual tracking.”’], and at 3 [“Defendant engaged in dual

tracking, that is processing their modiﬁcation request While at the same time proceeding With

Page 4 0f 6
Case 3:19-cv-01385-B Document 1 Filed 06/10/19 Page 5 of 6 PagelD 5

foreclosure.”]). While these claims are vague, there is n0 question Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant

to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g), Which is the relevant statute dealing With alleged dual tracking.

Plaintiffs assert federal claims under the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act found in 12 C.F.R.

§ 1024.

15. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district courts have “original jurisdiction of all

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, 0r treaties 0f the United States.” Defendant,

therefore, removes this matter t0 this Court pursuant t0 § 133 1.

V.
PARTIES TO THIS CASE

16. Defendant hereby ﬁles this list 0f all parties 0f record and their counsel, including

addresses, telephone numbers, and parties represented.

Counsel Party Represented

Darwin McKee Jane A. Adams and Wade P. Adams,
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 209 Plaintiff
Austin, Texas 78760
Telephone: (512) 637-1476
Facsimile: (512) 233-51 11

Reeves
Philip C. Rushmore Loan Management
Texas Bar N0. 24065959 Services, LLC, Defendant
Shapiro Schwartz, LLP
13 105 Northwest Freeway, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77040
Telephone: (7 13) 462-2565
Facsimile: (847) 879-4854

VI.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, Rushmore Loan Management

Services, LLC, respectﬁllly ﬁles this Notice 0f Removal thereby removing this action from the

191“ Judicial District Court 0f Dallas County, Texas t0 this Court.

Page 5 0f 6
Case 3:19-cv-01385-B Document 1 Filed 06/10/19 Page 6 of 6 PagelD 6

Respectfully submitted,

SHAPIROSCHWARTZ, LLP

By: /s/ Reeves
Philip C.
Philip C. Reeves
State Bar N0. 24065959
13105 Northwest Freeway, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77040
Telephone: (713) 462-2565
Facsimile: (847) 879-4854
Email: phreeves@logs.com

Attorneys for Rushmore Loan Management
Services, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ihereby certify that on this 10th day of June, 2019, a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing
was sent t0:

Darwin McKee
Attorney at Law
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 209
Austin, Texas 78750
Via ECF

/s/ Philip C. Reeves
Philip C. Reeves

Page 6 0f 6

Case Info

Judge

SLAUGHTER, GENA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 10, 2019

Case Filing Date

May 03, 2019

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Notice: JANE A ADAMS, et al vs. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties