Veldora Arthur Sues Chase for Fraud

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.:

LINDA PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, individually; VELDORA ARTHUR, individually; MAGDALENA A. APOSTOLOVA, individuallyand jointly with EMIL P. MILYAKOV, individuallyand 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. CHRISTOPHERSTARKEY, individually and jointly with LOUISAH. STARKEY individually and jointly; and LAWRENCE WALSH, individually and jointlywith 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 Court’s 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 Florida’s 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

Florida’s 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 3rd day of October, 2011.


6

Respectfully submitted,

__s/Thomas H. Loffredo____________Thomas H. LoffredoFlorida Bar No. 870323Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr.Florida Bar No. 29751GRAYROBINSON, P.A.Counsel for Defendant JPMorgan Chase, NAEast Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1850Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301Telephone: (954) 761-8111Facsimile: (954) [email protected]@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.

Florida Bar No. 29751


Case 9:11-cv-81106-DMM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2011 Page 1 of 4

dgoodacre-cline

Exhibit "A"





dgoodacre-cline

Exhibit "B"

dgoodacre-cline


















































Veldora Arthur Sues Chase for Fraud

Documents

jpmorgan chase bank

criminal practices act

fifteenth judicial circuit

subject matter jurisdiction

leon mcintyre

circuit court

catherine arterberry

attached hereto