Removal is Mandatory by Foreclosure Mills and Judge Bennett is Accepting All Applications

LIT’s 2024 UPDATE

As LIT’s investigative reporting confirms, the Bandit Texas Lawyer Clay “Untouchable” Vilt and Justina de Pasquale’s $10 Title Deed Fraudulent Conveyances are part of the SDTX federal judiciary’s Operation Cleanup of “Actual Fraud”, which continues into 2024.

May 22, 2024

JUDGE SIM LAKE & US TRUSTEE (US DEPT OF JUSTICE aka US Gov) @TheJusticeDept

SCOTUS call this Actual Fraud. https://t.co/AFK1rUb92R

Why are y’all blanking it when the legal bandits are involved?

Watch the short video for a lesson on Real Estate money launderin’ c/o @60Minutes pic.twitter.com/OHIKrGCYz2

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) May 22, 2024

LIT COMMENTARY

A Vilt & Associates Lawsuit | A Foreclosure Deed Scam Lawsuit | Sandy Forsythe of Millenia Properties is Payin’ the Tab

The Foreclosure Scam Squad Series: Brewer, Vilt and DeLaRue Targeted Katherine Hietala in Katy https://t.co/ZqXfUy3LbW

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 26, 2022

Agustin v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

(4:22-cv-00671)

District Court, S.D. Texas

MAR 3, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 5, 2022

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446, Defendant U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) removes this action from the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division as follows:

I. STATE COURT ACTION

On January 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Christian Agustin (“Plaintiff”) filed his Original Petition, Application for Injunctive Relief, and Request for Disclosures (the “Petition”) in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, in a case styled and numbered: Christian Agustin v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Cause No. 2022-05383 (the “State Court Action”).

In the State Court Action, Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Bank failed to provide pre-foreclosure notices, failed to conduct a face-to-face counseling session with Plaintiff, and used false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means to collect a debt.

Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure of the real property located at 16534 Space Center Blvd., Houston, Texas 77058 (the “Property”) that serves as security for Plaintiff’s loan with U.S. Bank. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for:

(1) declaratory judgment;

(2) breach of contract;

(3) violations of the Texas Property Code;

and

(4) violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”).

Plaintiff seeks actual damages, exemplary damages, emotional distress damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction enjoining U.S. Bank from selling the Property.

U.S. Bank was served on February 7, 2022. Therefore, this Notice of Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b)(1), 1446(b)(2)(B).

U.S. Bank removes the State Court Action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Agustin appears to Prequalify for the Foreclosure Relief Fund In Texas

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

This action is properly removed to this Court, as the lawsuit is pending within the district and division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(2).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, has original jurisdiction over this action based on diversity jurisdiction because U.S. Bank is now, and was at the time this action commenced, diverse in citizenship from Plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and Southern District of Texas Local Rule 81, this Notice of Removal is accompanied by copies of the following materials:

Exhibit A Index of Matters Being Filed
Exhibit B Civil Cover Sheet
Exhibit C List of all Counsel of Record
Exhibit D State Court docket sheet
Exhibit D-1 Original Petition
Exhibit D-2 Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order
Exhibit D-3 Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order
Exhibit D-4 Order Extending Temporary Restraining Order
Exhibit D-5 Second Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order
Exhibit D-6 Order Extending Temporary Restraining Order
Exhibit D-7 Defendant’s Original Answer
Exhibit E Harris County Appraisal District Property Valuation

In connection with the filing of this Notice of Removal, U.S. Bank is filing a copy of the Notice of Removal in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Where there is complete diversity among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, an action may be removed to federal court. See 28 U.S.C.§§ 1332(a), 1441(a).

Complete diversity exists in this case because Plaintiff is not citizen of the same state as U.S. Bank. Additionally, this action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000 in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.

A. THE PARTIES ARE COMPLETELY DIVERSE

Plaintiff is a natural person, so his citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by “where [he is] domiciled, that is, where [he has] a fixed residence with the intent to remain there indefinitely.” Margetis v. Ray, No. 3:08-CV-958-L, 2009 WL 464962, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2009) (citing Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 555-56 (5th Cir. 1985)).

Plaintiff is domiciled in Texas. See Petition, ¶ 2. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas for diversity purposes.

U.S. Bank is a national banking association organized under federal law. A national bank, for diversity purposes, “is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its Articles of Association, is located.” Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006). Under its articles of association, U.S. Bank’s main office is located in Ohio.

Therefore, U.S. Bank is a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Wachovia Bank, 546 U.S. at 307.

Consequently, complete diversity exists in this case.

B. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS MET

Where a defendant can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, removal is proper.

See White v. FCI U.S.A., Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 675–76 (5th Cir. 2003).

A defendant can meet this burden if it is apparent from the face of the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or, alternatively, if the defendant introduces other evidence to show that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

See St. Paul Reins. Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998).

The Court may also consider actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees in determining the amount in controversy.

See White, 319 F.3d at 675-76; St. Paul Reins. Co., 134 F.3d at 1253 n.7; Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. L.P., 309 F.3d 864, 874 (5th Cir. 2002)

(“[W]e hold that when there is state statutory authority for the court to award attorney’s fees . . . such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.”).

Additionally, “[i]n actions 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.” Farkas v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341(5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)); Martinez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 777 F. Supp. 2d. 1039, 1044 (W.D. Tex. 2010).

Thus, “‘when . . . a right to property is called into question in its entirety, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy.’”

Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Knox, No. 08-60887, 351 F. App’x 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961));

see also Alsobrook v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 541 F. App’x 340, No. 12-10623, 2013 WL 3929935, at *2 n.2 (5th Cir. July 31, 2013);

Copeland v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 11-51206, 485 F. App’x 8, 9 (5th Cir. 2012)

(relying on the value of the property to satisfy the amount in controversy in exercising diversity jurisdiction over appeal of foreclosure- related claims).

Here, according to the Petition, “the subject matter of this lawsuit is the real property and the improvements thereon located at 16534 Space Center Blvd, Houston, TX 77058.” Petition ¶ 6 (Ex. D-1).

According to the Harris County Appraisal District, the market value of the Property as of January 1, 2021 is $211,261.1

See Ex. E. Plaintiff specifically seeks injunctive relief enjoining a foreclosure sale of the Property and a declaration that the previously noticed foreclosure sale was “wrongful.” Petition ¶¶ 14, 39.

Plaintiff additionally seeks attorneys’ fees, exemplary fees, and mental anguish damages. Petition ¶¶ 28–29, prayer.

Thus, based on a review of the Petition and the evidence presented, the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Because there is complete diversity among the parties and because the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Therefore, removal is proper.

IV. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant U.S. Bank National Association removes this action from the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, so that this Court may assume jurisdiction over the cause as provided by law.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel Durell
State Bar No. 24078450
S.D. Tex. Bar No. 2745564
daniel.durell@lockelord.com

LOCKE LORD LLP
600 Congress Ave., Suite 2200
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 305-4700
Facsimile: (512) 305-4800

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on March 3, 2022, on the following via U.S. mail and electronic mail pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Via U.S. Mail & E-mail
Robert C. Vilt
VILT AND ASSOCIATES – TX, P.C.
5177 Richmond Avenue,
Suite 1142
Houston, Texas 77056
Clay@viltlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

Daniel Durell