Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Madhu Estates, LLC v. Tompson

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

August 7, 2018

Madhu Estates, LLC
v.
Judith Tompson

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Defendant, Judith Tompson, removed this eviction proceeding from the New Hampshire Circuit Court, 10th Circuit, District Division, Salem (“Salem District Court”) to federal court. See Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1). Tompson's initial filings are before the court to determine whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction. See LR 4.3(d)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Also before the court is Tompson's motion to continue electricity (Doc. No. 7), seeking a preliminary injunction ordering that electric service be maintained at the subject condominium unit during the eviction proceeding. That motion has been referred to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. In addition, Tompson's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6), plaintiff Madhu Estates LLC's “Motion to Dismiss, ” seeking a remand (Doc. No. 10), are pending here.

         Background

         Tompson fell behind on mortgage loan payments and suffered a mortgage foreclosure on her condominium unit in Salem, New Hampshire. Tompson continued to reside in the condominium unit after Fannie Mae acquired the property by foreclosure deed.

         Fannie Mae filed a landlord and tenant action in state court against Tompson to evict her. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Tompson, No. 473-2017-LT-11121 (N.H. Cir. Ct., 10th Cir., Dist. Div., Salem, filed Nov. 16, 2017) (“Fannie Mae I”). Tompson removed that action to federal court, see Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Tompson, No. 17-cv-699-SM (D.N.H.) (“Fannie Mae II”). The court in Fannie Mae II remanded that case to Salem District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fannie Mae II, 2018 DNH 108, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86086, at *10, 2018 WL 2426638, at *4 (D.N.H. May 21, 2018) (ECF No. 15).[1]

         Fannie Mae held a public auction in March 2018, at which Madhu Estates LLC was the highest bidder. After the deed transfer, Fannie Mae filed a notice of voluntary non-suit in the remanded state case on June 5, 2018, and that state case was closed. See June 5, 2018 Vol. Nonsuit, Fannie Mae I.

         Madhu Estates LLC filed this eviction proceeding on June 11, 2018 in Salem District Court, to evict Tompson. See Madhu Estates LLC v. Tompson, No. 473-2018-LT-00059 (N.H. Cir. Ct., 10th Cir., Dist. Div., Salem, filed June 11, 2018). Tompson filed a notice of removal here on June 19, 2018, before she filed an answer asserting defenses and counterclaims.

         I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         A case may be removed to federal court if this court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This court has authority to consider, sua sponte, whether it has jurisdiction over a removed case. See York v. Day Transfer Co., 525 F.Supp.2d 289, 295 (D.R.I. 2007); see also Am. Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., Inc., 989 F.2d 1256, 1258 (1st Cir. 1993) (court is obliged to address propriety of removal as threshold matter). In the context of disputes over removal jurisdiction, it is the removing defendant's burden to show that removal was proper. See Fayard v. Northeast Vehicle Servs., LLC, 533 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2008); see also Acosta-Ramírez v. Banco Popular de P.R.., 712 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2013). “Furthermore, the removal statute should be strictly construed, and any doubts about the propriety of removal should be resolved against the removal of an action.” Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. AstraZeneca PLC (In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.), 431 F.Supp.2d 109, 116 (D. Mass. 2006). Remand to the state courts is required if, at any time, it appears that the district court lacks jurisdiction over the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

         A. Diversity Jurisdiction

         Tompson relies primarily on diversity of citizenship as the basis for invoking this court's subject matter jurisdiction. The pertinent statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of citizenship, and an amount in controversy exceeding the jurisdictional amount of $75, 000.00.

         1. Citizenship

         Tompson is a New Hampshire resident. The plaintiff, Madhu Estates LLC, is a limited liability company, which is deemed to be a citizen of each state where its members reside. Pramco, LLC ex rel. CFSC Consortium, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2006). Gaddam Madhu, who manages Madhu Estates LLC, has a Massachusetts address. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.