Veldora Arthur Sues Chase For Fraud

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO.:
LINDA PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, individually;
VELDORA ARTHUR, individually;
MAGDALENA A. APOSTOLOVA, individually
and jointly with EMIL P. MILYAKOV, individually
and jointly; THAXTER ARTERBERRY, individually
and jointly with CATHERINE ARTERBERRY,
individually and jointly; SIMONE BRAXTON,
individually; MARK I. CONGRESS, individually
and jointly With LORETTA R. CONGRESS,
individually and jointly; LOUIS CORTI, individually;
RENA E. JOHNSTON-FARRINGTON as agent of
the Farrington Family Trust; RENITA Z. GORDON,
individually; THOMAS P. GUTIERREZ, individually;
RUSSELL B. HOBSON, individually and jointly
with JANE HOBSON, individually and jointly;
JEAN IMMESBERGER, individually and jointly
with RONALD IMMESBERGER, individually and
jointly; CRAIG LIEBERMAN, individually; SOLANGE
MCINTYRE individually and jointly with LEON
MCINTYRE, individually and jointly; GREGORY
MISSMAN, individually and jointly with NINA
MISSMAN, individually and jointly; FRANK RAPP,
individually and jointly with SUSAN NICHTER,
individually and jointly; PAULA A. RENARD,
individually; JEANNI ALICE SCHIPPER, individually;
THERESA M. SCHOENBART, individually;
MICHAEL D. SCOTT, individually; H. CHRISTOPHER
STARKEY, individually and jointly with LOUISA
H. STARKEY individually and jointly; and
LAWRENCE WALSH, individually and jointly
with MELANIE WALSH, individually and jointly;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and CHASE
HOME FINANCE LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________/
Case 9:11-cv-81106-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2011 Page 1 of 7
2
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, LLC (collectively, Defendants),
pursuant to Rule 81(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 1441, 1446, 1331
and 1332, respectfully removes this action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, on the following grounds:
1. Defendant, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., is a national banking
association with its main office located in Columbus, Ohio. See U.S.C. 1348; see also
Excelsor Funds, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 470 F. Supp. 2d 312, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
("[A] national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located, and not the
state in which its principal place of business is located, if that state differs from the location of
its main office."). JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A is the successor by merger to Chase
Home Finance, LLC. The merger was effective May 1, 2011.
2. Plaintiffs are citizens of various states, including: Florida, California, New
York, Tennessee, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
1
3. On August 23, 2011, Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Circuit Court of
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiffs alleged four
causes of action against Defendants: Common Law Fraud (Count I); Conspiracy to Defraud

1
There are thirty-two (32) Plaintiffs in this action. Linda P. Zimmerman and Veldora Arthur are
citizens of Florida; Madgalena Apostolova, Emil P. Milyakov, Thaxter Arterberry, Catherine
Arterberry, Simone Braxton, Mark Congress, Loretta R. Congress, Rena E. Johnston-Farrington,
Thomas P. Guiterrez, Craig Lieberman, Gregory Missman, Nina Missman, Paula A. Renard, Jeanni
Schipper, Theresa M. Schoenbart and Michael D. Scott are citizens of California; Louis Corti is a
citizen of New York; Renita Z. Gordon is a citizen of Tennessee; Russell B. Hobson, Jane Hobson,
Jean Immesberger and Ronald Immesberger are citizens of New Jersey; Solange McIntyre and Leon
McIntyre are citizens of Washington; Frank Rapp Susan Nichter, H. Christopher Starkey and Louisa
H. Starkey are citizens of Massachusetts; and Lawrence Walsh and Melanie Walsh are citizens of
Wisconsin.
3
(Count II); Violations of Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Count III); and
Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief (Count IV).
4. Defendants were served with process in this action on September 1, 2011,
thereby rendering this removal timely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b).
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) because: (a) this is a civil action between citizens of different states; (b)
Defendants are not citizens of the state of Florida; (c) there exists complete diversity between
the parties; and (d) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs.
6. The amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is satisfied in
this case because it is clear from the face of Plaintiffs' complaint that the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.
1332(a). Where the Plaintiffs complaint does not plead a specific amount of damages, the
removing defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence, must prove that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Williams v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269
F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). In determining the amount in controversy, a district court
should first review the allegations in the complaint. Id. (citing Sierminski v. Transouth Fin.
Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000)).
7. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants perpetrated a fraud upon the
Plaintiffs through the foreclosure of the Plaintiffs real properties, whereby the Defendants
fraudulently and unlawfully converted the Plaintiffs real property, causing damages which
include but are not limited to the loss of real property, the incurring of expenses and the
adverse effects of claimed defaults and foreclosures placed on the Plaintiffs credit reports.
4
(Compl., 79-91.) In short, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants committed theft of
residential real property. (Compl., 97.)
8. By way of an example, the amount at issue related to Linda P. Zimmerman
alone propels this action beyond the Courts jurisdictional amount in controversy. A true and
correct copy of the publicly-recorded Final Judgment of Foreclosure, in the amount of
$581,646.13, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
9. Plaintiffs also seek treble damages under Floridas Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act. (Compl., 94.) Moreover, the Plaintiffs are seeking to halt all
foreclosure activity by the Defendants nationwide. (Compl., 115.)
10. In light of the foregoing, although Defendants deny any liability to Plaintiffs, a
reasonable reading of Plaintiffs' allegations and request for damages plainly places more than
$75,000 in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs. Thus, Defendants respectfully submit
that the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement is more than satisfied in this
instance.
11. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1331 because the Complaint alleges federal claims and requires the resolution of
substantial questions of federal law, this case is a civil action arising under the laws of the
United States over which this Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1441 (a), (b) and (c). See Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g &
Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005); Ayres v. General Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 2000).

2
Defendants request that this Court to take judicial notice of the judgment. See, e.g., Roundtree v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No.: 3:09-cv-189, 2009 WL 5215334, *2, n.3 (M.D. Fla. Dec.
29, 2009) (taking judicial notice of foreclosure judgment entered by Florida Circuit Court).
5
12. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege as a predicate act for their cause of action under
Floridas RICO statute that Defendants committed the federal crime of mail fraud under 18
U.S.C. 1341, 1961. Compl. 97. Accordingly, this case presents a federal question
removable under 28 U.S.C. 1441.
13. Venue is proper in this Court because it is the district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).
14. This Notice of Removal is timely filed within thirty (30) days after Plaintiffs
served Defendants with a copy of the initial pleadings. 28 U.S.C. 1446(a).
15. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), Defendants have contemporaneously filed a
copy of this Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida.
16. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), copies of any and all papers filed in the
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida are
attached hereto as Composite Exhibit B.
17. Defendants respectfully request that the Plaintiffs comply with the
requirements set forth in Local Rule 12.1 and serve a RICO Case Statement within 30 days.
WHEREFORE, this civil action is hereby removed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division.
Respectfully submitted this 3
rd
day of October, 2011.
6
Respectfully submitted,
__s/Thomas H. Loffredo____________
Thomas H. Loffredo
Florida Bar No. 870323
Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr.
GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
Counsel for Defendant JPMorgan
Chase, NA
East Las Olas Boulevard,
Suite 1850
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 761-8111
Facsimile: (954) 761-8112
tom.loffredo@gray-robinson.com
ronald.tomassi@gray-robinson.com
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 3rd day October, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Courts by using the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing
(CM/ECF). I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document via U.S. mail to Jeff
Barnes, Esq., W. J. Barnes, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiffs, 1515 North Federal Highway Suite
300 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 on October 3rd, 2011.
s/Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr.
Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr.
Case 9:11-cv-81106-DMM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2011 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 'A'
Exhibit 'B'

Veldora Arthur Sues Chase For Fraud

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Veldora Arthur Sues Chase For Fraud

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Вам также может понравиться