Preview
‘
A
‘
n
/ '
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
A
( ‘
_
.
5 ouOCKLM
Fun \
..
STATE, STOP WRIT OF POSSESSION U
MW—“fiA‘M "
JUN 03 [
2°22
7
2022
,g L359?
:3; ,‘é
NO.,CL-22-0058-D
wufl“my mgésufi
‘
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk '
s
3y
GERARDO CASTILLO
IN THE COUNTY AT LAW No.4
407 MANHATEN CIRC DONNA TX 78537
DEFENDANT PRO SE
HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS.
VS
US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE
TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR
STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF
STATE, STOP WRIT OF POSSESSION
PLAINTIFF US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION
ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1
TRUST 2007-HE7
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- HE7 .
Through undersigned counsel, herby remove case no. CL-22-0058-D
this
, FROM THE IN THE
COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS,(the state court action")
see plaintiff filed an answer on JANUARY 1, 2022 in the state Court Action”) to the united
states.
Plaintiff denies the allegations of the complaint and the damages contained therein and , files
this notice without waiving any defenses, exceptions, or obligations that
may exist in its favor
. of her in state or federal court.
ll.
-
PLEADINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT
2.-True and correct copy of all process and pleadings in the state court action are being filed
along with this notice of removal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of this removal
is being served on plaintiff and filed in the state court action.
|||.- STATEMENT OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This action is within the original jurisdiction of the United States District court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1332(A)(1). That statute provides ,
in pertinent part ,that "the district court shall have
the original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between citizens of different states," 28
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1441(A) because the state
court where the state court Actions been pending is located in this district. As discussed in
detail below, this action satisfies the statutory requirements for diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction.
IV.- DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
A.- CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES
4.- This civil action involves a controversy between citizens of different states.
Defender s a citizen of states of Texas.
5.- trustee is not a citizen of Texas. U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee
ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee of a trust. When determining citizenship of a trust for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which control, not the
citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust, U.S BANK National Association's articles of
association establish that Ohio is its main office.
Therefore, trustee is a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes.
6. - Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other than Texas,
'
there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.
B. -
Amount in controversy
7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold. A party
may remove an action from state Court to federal court if the action is one over which the
federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Such jurisdiction
exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).
8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district
courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal,
alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum.
See S.E.S erectors , inc v. infax.inc. 72 f,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition does not allege
a specific amount ofdamages the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v. State Farm Lloyds
,205 f spp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 (5th cir
1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th cir
2002)(explaining that the removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it "facially
apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& H olil& Gas
co. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th cir 1995).
9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefore, the
foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, I, and the Texas Property Code.
From stop eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ ,Donna Texas 78537 ( The
property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75,000.
10.- The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for 2012 is no
less than $242,306 .
11.- Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged I the petition for removal that
support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. In action
seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in controversy is
measured by the value of the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief which if successful
would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and trustee's right to
foreclose on and take possession of the property.
12.- When the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into question in its entirety,
the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy in an
action for declaratory or injunctive relief , is the value of the right to be protected or the
extent of the injury to be prevented.
Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose ,
the object of the litigation is the
property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property.
The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than
$242,306.00 per the records of the Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See d.
The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for
diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages asserted by defendant.
V.-
THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR
TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.(RULE
24.2,3,4) OF THE APPEALS CODE. CAUSE ACTION 13-22-00226-CV
THE SUSPENCION 0F SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR
TRIAL BEFORE THECOURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION N0. 7:22-CV-00007.
HONORABLE RICARDO H.HINOJOSA .U.S. DISTRICT OURT BENTSEN TOWER ,11TH
FLOOR ,1701 WEST BUS .HWY.83 MCALLEN ,TEXAS 78501
14.- FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, DEFENDANT ASKS IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4
IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS. TO REMOVE THIS SUIT THE UNITED STATES.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED,
GERARDO CASTILLO
407 MANHATTAN CIRC
DONNA TEXAS, 78537.
Matrixdigital11@yahoo.com
Telephonez9562239407. DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE.
0n JUNE 3, 2022, this office had telephone conference with Defendant I inform
you that the motion. Speak Miss. Patty.
TO DISMISS CIVIL CAUSE: CL-22-0058-D.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO # 4 HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS.
.
,
THE HONORABLE JUDGE FEDERICO "FRED" GARZA, JR
Complying with the process of responsibility.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this JUNE 3 , 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
and / or attached was served on the following in accordance with complying with
the process of responsibility.
JACK O’BOYLE&ASSOCIATES,PLLC
Chris Ferguson
SBN: 24069714
chris@]ackoboy|e.com
P.O. Box 815369
Dallas, Texas 75381
P: 9722470653/ F: 9722470642.
Via Email, and U.S. MAIL.
PLAINTT.
Preview
‘ A ‘ n / ' United States District Court Southern District of Texas A ( ‘ _ . 5 ouOCKLM Fun \ .. STATE, STOP WRIT OF POSSESSION U MW—“fiA‘M " JUN 03 [ 2°22 7 2022 ,g L359? :3; ,‘é NO.,CL-22-0058-D wufl“my mgésufi ‘ Nathan Ochsner, Clerk ' s 3y GERARDO CASTILLO IN THE COUNTY AT LAW No.4 407 MANHATEN CIRC DONNA TX 78537 DEFENDANT PRO SE HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS. VS US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7 PLAINTIFF STATE, STOP WRIT OF POSSESSION PLAINTIFF US BANK.NA, SUCCESOR TRUSTEE TO LASELLE BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2007-HE7 ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- HE7 . Through undersigned counsel, herby remove case no. CL-22-0058-D this , FROM THE IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY TEXAS,(the state court action") see plaintiff filed an answer on JANUARY 1, 2022 in the state Court Action”) to the united states. Plaintiff denies the allegations of the complaint and the damages contained therein and , files this notice without waiving any defenses, exceptions, or obligations that may exist in its favor . of her in state or federal court. ll. - PLEADINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT 2.-True and correct copy of all process and pleadings in the state court action are being filed along with this notice of removal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of this removal is being served on plaintiff and filed in the state court action. |||.- STATEMENT OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE This action is within the original jurisdiction of the United States District court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(A)(1). That statute provides , in pertinent part ,that "the district court shall have the original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between citizens of different states," 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1441(A) because the state court where the state court Actions been pending is located in this district. As discussed in detail below, this action satisfies the statutory requirements for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. IV.- DIVERSITY JURISDICTION A.- CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES 4.- This civil action involves a controversy between citizens of different states. Defender s a citizen of states of Texas. 5.- trustee is not a citizen of Texas. U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee ASSOCIATION, N.A. is the trustee of a trust. When determining citizenship of a trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which control, not the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust, U.S BANK National Association's articles of association establish that Ohio is its main office. Therefore, trustee is a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes. 6. - Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas and plaintiff is a citizen of a state other than Texas, ' there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. B. - Amount in controversy 7 .- This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold. A party may remove an action from state Court to federal court if the action is one over which the federal court possesses subject matterjurisdiction, See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. SE 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). 8.- When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district courts query whether a defendant state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal, alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum. See S.E.S erectors , inc v. infax.inc. 72 f,3d 489,492 (5th cir,1996) if the petition does not allege a specific amount ofdamages the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, Se lewis v. State Farm Lloyds ,205 f spp.2d 706,708 (s.d. Tex. 2002) citing de Aguilar v. boeing co. 111 f.3d 55.58 (5th cir 1993); see also Manguno v prudential prop and cas ins. co.,276 f.3d 720,723 (5th cir 2002)(explaining that the removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it "facially apparent" that the defendant's claimed damages likely exceed $75,000. Allen v r& H olil& Gas co. 63 F ,3d 1326,1335 (5th cir 1995). 9.- Defendant never received any notice of foreclose as required by law, Therefore, the foreclose did not follow the steps mandated by statute, I, and the Texas Property Code. From stop eviction ,of property located at 407 Manhattan circ ,Donna Texas 78537 ( The property) and Evalue of the property exceeds $75,000. 10.- The evalue of property according to the Hidalgo County appraisal District for 2012 is no less than $242,306 . 11.- Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged I the petition for removal that support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. In action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief ,it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation ,defendant seek relief which if successful would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and trustee's right to foreclose on and take possession of the property. 12.- When the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into question in its entirety, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief , is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. Also, where a party seek to quiet title or undo a foreclose , the object of the litigation is the property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property. The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than $242,306.00 per the records of the Hidalgo county Appraisal District for 2021. See d. The value of the property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,0000 for diversity purpose as does the specific claim for money damages asserted by defendant. V.- THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.(RULE 24.2,3,4) OF THE APPEALS CODE. CAUSE ACTION 13-22-00226-CV THE SUSPENCION 0F SUCH EVICTION ACTION, WHILE IT IS IN LITIGATION OR TRIAL BEFORE THECOURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION N0. 7:22-CV-00007. HONORABLE RICARDO H.HINOJOSA .U.S. DISTRICT OURT BENTSEN TOWER ,11TH FLOOR ,1701 WEST BUS .HWY.83 MCALLEN ,TEXAS 78501 14.- FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, DEFENDANT ASKS IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 IN AND FOR HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS. TO REMOVE THIS SUIT THE UNITED STATES. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED, GERARDO CASTILLO 407 MANHATTAN CIRC DONNA TEXAS, 78537. Matrixdigital11@yahoo.com Telephonez9562239407. DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE. 0n JUNE 3, 2022, this office had telephone conference with Defendant I inform you that the motion. Speak Miss. Patty. TO DISMISS CIVIL CAUSE: CL-22-0058-D. IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO # 4 HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS. . , THE HONORABLE JUDGE FEDERICO "FRED" GARZA, JR Complying with the process of responsibility. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this JUNE 3 , 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing and / or attached was served on the following in accordance with complying with the process of responsibility. JACK O’BOYLE&ASSOCIATES,PLLC Chris Ferguson SBN: 24069714 chris@]ackoboy|e.com P.O. Box 815369 Dallas, Texas 75381 P: 9722470653/ F: 9722470642. Via Email, and U.S. MAIL. PLAINTT.