Jun 27, 2024
Last visit and/or update by LIT.
Filed for BK on Jun 3 without paying fee, which he’s asked to pay instalments, then on Jun 6 the court issues;
Order to James Martzall, Debtor to Appear and Show Cause why this case should not be Dismissed with a 180 day Bar to refiling because of the filing of several cases.
Show Cause Hearing Set For 7/11/2024 at 1:30 PM at SA Courtroom 1.
(Order entered on 6/6/2024) (Castleberry, Deanna)
along with;
Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors & Notice of Appointment of Interim Trustee. 341(a) meeting
Set For 7/10/2024 at 01:00 PM via Zoom
– Viegelahn: Meeting ID 658 044 4240, Passcode 1118547573, OR call 210-675-8908
Objections to Dischargeability of debt due 9/9/2024
– Confirmation Hearing Set For 8/1/2024 at 10:00 AM at SA Courtroom 1
– Proofs of Claim Due 8/12/2024. (Viegelahn, Chapter 13 Trustee, Mary)
The hearing marked the first for the ex-judge in the scandal since a bombshell lawsuit rocked the world, unearthing a tightly-guarded romantic relationship between Judge David R. Jones of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas and Freeman, his one-time clerk. pic.twitter.com/ojSw9rcUJ2
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) June 25, 2024
James Martzall v. Union Bank of Switzerland AG
2024CI11627
Bexar County – 407th District Court
Oh, well, game back on…
Bookmark for updates.
HARRIS COUNTY: Who is ‘Notorious’ Texas Administrative Judge Susan Brown and husband Judge Marc Brown? https://t.co/w3kOkkcZgh pic.twitter.com/AS19wkuhBK
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) June 26, 2024
LIT COMMENTARY (2023)
JAN 1, 2023
The property was for sale between Jun and Sep 2022, but was removed. Martzall still homeowner per records.
Martzall v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(5:22-cv-00018)
District Court, W.D. Texas
JAN 10, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 12, 2022
How one video on twitter (shown above) can change foreclosure proceedings involving Texas lawyers and DBNTCO in less than 24 hrs.
On Monday, June 13, the Judge Granted the withdrawal of Martzall’s attorney and gave Martzall 30 days to decide if he’s going to proceed pro se.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL, The Court construes Plaintiff’s Advisory as a Notice of Dismissal. 38 Advisory to the Court filed by James Martzall
U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (San Antonio)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:22-cv-00018-XR
| Martzall v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Xavier Rodriguez
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal – Foreclosure |
Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Date Terminated: 10/05/2022 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/31/2022 | 36 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 Asset Backed Notes, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1-A, # 3 Exhibit 1-B, # 4 Exhibit 1-C, # 5 Exhibit 1-D, # 6 Exhibit 1-E, # 7 Exhibit 1-F, # 8 Exhibit 1-G, # 9 Exhibit 2, # 10 Exhibit 3, # 11 Proposed Order)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2022) |
| 09/01/2022 | 37 | MOTION for Sanctions by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 Asset Backed Notes, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 09/01/2022) |
| 10/03/2022 | 38 | ADVISORY TO THE COURT by James Martzall. (wg) (Entered: 10/03/2022) |
| 10/05/2022 | 39 | ORDER OF DISMISSAL, The Court construes Plaintiff’s Advisory as a Notice of Dismissal. 38 Advisory to the Court filed by James Martzall, DENIED 37 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 Asset Backed Notes, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., The Clerk is DIRECTED to send this Order to James Martzall 16543 Inwood Cove, San Antonio, Texas 78248. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 10/05/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/05/2022 19:15:17 |
ORDER, that Plaintiff shall no later than September 16, 2022, Plaintiff must file a notice advising the Court whether he intends to proceed pro se or whether he has secured counsel, who must also enter a notice of appearance no later than September 16, 2022.
U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (San Antonio)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:22-cv-00018-XR
| Martzall v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Xavier Rodriguez
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal – Foreclosure |
Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/19/2022 | 34 | ORDER, that Plaintiff shall no later than September 16, 2022, Plaintiff must file a notice advising the Court whether he intends to proceed pro se or whether he has secured counsel, who must also enter a notice of appearance no later than September 16, 2022. Failure to do so may subject Plaintiffsclaims to dismissal for failure to prosecute re 32 Order, Terminate Motions. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 08/19/2022) |
| 08/19/2022 | 35 | AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, ( ADR Mediation Completed by 10/17/2022,, Discovery due by 10/3/2022,, Dispositive Motions due by 10/31/2022,, Jury Selection set for 2/6/2023 10:30AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez,, Jury Trial set for 2/6/2023 10:30 AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez,, Pretrial Conference set for 1/19/2023 10:30 AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez,). Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 08/19/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 08/24/2022 07:50:29 |
| ORDER GRANTING CONSOLIDATION re 4 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., The Court hereby ORDERS that SA-22-CV-00608-XR be consolidated into SA-22-CV-00018-XR. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings be filed in SA-22-CV-00018-XR. The Clerks Office is therefore DIRECTED to administratively close SA-22-CV-00608-XR pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 06/28/2022) |
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Xavier Rodriguez:
Motion Hearing held on 5/12/2022 re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction filed by James Martzall
(Minute entry documents are not available electronically.).
Court denies motion for preliminary injunction.
(Court Reporter GiGi Simcox.)(rg) (Entered: 05/13/2022)
U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (San Antonio)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:22-cv-00018-XR
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Martzall v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Xavier Rodriguez
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal – Foreclosure |
Date Filed: 01/10/2022 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 04/19/2022 | 21 | MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction by James Martzall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Proposed Order Enjoining Deutsche’s Interference with Plaintiff’s Possession)(Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/19/2022) |
| 04/20/2022 | 22 | ORDER, that the Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a response, no later than May 3, 2022. Any reply must be filed no later than May 6, 2022. re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction filed by James Martzall, ( Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2022 03:30 PM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez,). Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 04/20/2022) |
| 04/27/2022 | 23 | NOTICE of Partial Nonsuit of Certain Claims by James Martzall (Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/27/2022) |
| 05/03/2022 | 24 | Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 Asset Backed Notes, re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff James Martzall (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1-A, # 3 Exhibit 1-B, # 4 Exhibit 1-C, # 5 Exhibit 1-D, # 6 Exhibit 1-E, # 7 Exhibit 1-F, # 8 Exhibit 1-G, # 9 Exhibit 2, # 10 Exhibit 3, # 11 Proposed Order ORDER)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2022) |
| 05/06/2022 | 25 | REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by James Martzall, re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff James Martzall (Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2022) |
| 05/09/2022 | 26 | SUPPLEMENT to 25 Reply to Response to Motion by James Martzall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9, # 2 Exhibit 10, # 3 Exhibit 11, # 4 Exhibit 12, # 5 Exhibit 13, # 6 Exhibit 14, # 7 Exhibit 15)(Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/09/2022) |
| 05/09/2022 | 27 | Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to His Reply in Support of His Motion for Preliminary Injunction by James Martzall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Supplement His Reply in Support of His Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/09/2022) |
| 05/10/2022 | 28 | SUPPLEMENT to 25 Reply to Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction by James Martzall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9, # 2 Exhibit 10, # 3 Exhibit 11, # 4 Exhibit 12, # 5 Exhibit 13, # 6 Exhibit 14, # 7 Exhibit 15)(Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/10/2022) |
| 05/12/2022 | 29 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Xavier Rodriguez: Motion Hearing held on 5/12/2022 re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Hearing for Preliminary Injunction filed by James Martzall (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). Court denies motion for preliminary injunction. (Court Reporter GiGi Simcox.)(rg) (Entered: 05/13/2022) |
[SPECULATIVE] SCHEDULING ORDER (FEB 10, 2022)
The disposition of this case will be controlled by the following order. If a deadline set in this order falls on a weekend or a holiday, the effective day will be the next business day.
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS
The deadline for Plaintiff(s) to file a motion seeking leave to amend pleadings; or to join parties is April 1, 2022.
The deadline for Defendant(s) to file a motion (1) to designate responsible third parties, pursuant to Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 33.004(a); (2) seeking leave to amend pleadings; or (3) to join parties is April 15, 2022.
EXPERTS
All parties asserting claims for relief shall file their designation of testifying experts and serve on all parties, but not file, the materials required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B) on or before July 1, 2022.
Parties resisting claims for relief shall file their designation of testifying experts and serve on all parties, but not file, the materials required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B) on or before July 15, 2022.
All parties shall file all designations of rebuttal experts and serve on all parties the material required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B) for such rebuttal experts, to the extent not already served, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the report of the opposing expert.
An objection to the reliability of an expert’s proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony, within eleven (11) days from the receipt of the written report of the expert’s proposed testimony, or within eleven (11) days from obtaining a copy of the expert’s deposition, if a deposition is taken, whichever is later.
The deadline for filing supplemental reports required under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e) is
September 5, 2022.
WITNESS LIST, EXHIBIT LIST, AND PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES
The deadline for filing Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures is December 9, 2022.
The deadline for filing objections under Rule 26(a)(3) is December 22, 2022. Any objections not made will be deemed waived.
COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY
Written discovery requests are not timely if they are filed so close to this deadline that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the response would not be due until after the deadline.
The deadline for the completion of all discovery is October 3, 2022. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION/MEDIATION
The parties must mediate this case on or before October 17, 2022 and file a report in accordance with Rule 88 within seven days after the mediation is completed.
All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed.
The parties are ordered to retain the written offers of settlement and response as the Court will use these in assessing attorneys’ fees and costs at the conclusion of the proceedings.
If a settlement is reached, the parties should immediately notify the Court so the case may be removed from the Court’s trial docket.
PRETRIAL MOTIONS
No motion (other than a motion in limine) may be filed after this date except for good cause. The deadline to file motions (including dispositive motions and Daubert motions) is October 31, 2022.
This deadline is also applicable to the filing of any summary judgment motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 56 and any defense of qualified immunity. Leave of court is automatically given to file motions, responses, and replies not to exceed 30 pages in length. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d) does not apply to the time limits set forth in Local Rule CV-7 for responses and replies to motions.
JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER AND MOTION IN LIMINE
The deadline to file a Final Joint Pretrial Order and any motion in limine is January 6, 2023.
All attorneys are responsible for preparing the Final Joint Pretrial Order, which must contain the following:
(1) a short statement identifying the Court’s jurisdiction. If there is an unresolved jurisdictional question, state it;
(2) a brief statement of the case, one that the judge could read to the jury panel for an introduction to the facts and parties;
(3) a summary of the remaining claims and defenses of each party;
(4) a list of facts all parties have reached agreement upon;
(5) a list of contested issues of fact;
(6) a list of the legal propositions that are not in dispute;
(7) a list of contested issues of law;
(8) a list of all exhibits expected to be offered. Counsel will make all exhibits available for examination by opposing counsel. All documentary exhibits must be exchanged before the final pre-trial conference.
The exhibit list should clearly reflect whether a particular exhibit is objected to or whether there are no objections to the exhibit;
(9) a list of the names and addresses of witnesses who may be called with a brief statement of the nature of their testimony;
(10) an estimate of the length of trial;
(11) for a jury trial, include (a) proposed questions for the voir dire examination, and (b) a proposed charge, including instructions, definitions, and special interrogatories, with authority;
(12) for a nonjury trial, include (a) proposed findings of fact and (b) proposed conclusions of law, with authority;
(13) the signatures of all attorneys; and
(14) a place for the date and the signature of the presiding judge.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
The Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on January 19, 2023 at 10:30 a.m.
Motions in limine, if any, will be heard on this date. Counsel should confer prior to this hearing on any issues raised in a motion in limine or the Joint Pretrial Order. Any party intending to use a demonstrative exhibit should provide the same to opposing counsel at least 3 days prior to the Final Pretrial conference so that if any objections or issues are raised about the demonstrative exhibit, they can be addressed at the final pretrial conference.
TRIAL
The Bench Trial Date is January 30, 2023 at 10:30 a.m.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this February 10, 2022
XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On Feb. 8 a motion to remand to state court was filed and on Feb. 9th a notice of lis pendens* was filed in federal court.
A “lis pendens notice” is a notice recorded in a real property’s chain of title and is designed to enable interested third parties to discover the existence and scope of pending litigation affecting the title to or asserting a mortgage, lien, security interest, or other interest in real property.
Standing Order Issued on Jan 12 re removal of foreclosure cases.
JAMES MARTZALL
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 Asset Backed Notes (“Trustee” or “Defendant”) through undersigned counsel, hereby removes this case from the 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, (LIT: Obviously that German Bank are not Spurs fans) to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
Defendant 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 in state or federal court.
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
1. On or about December 30, 2021, Plaintiff James Martzall (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing a Petition, Cause No. 2021CI26353, in the 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas (the “State Court Action”). See Exhibit C-1.
On the same date, Plaintiff obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order. See Exhibit C-2.
Defendant filed an answer on January 6, 2022. See Exhibit C-4.
This action is being removed less than 30 days following service of the Petition filed in the State Court Action and less than 30 days after Defendant appeared in the State Court Action.
Accordingly, removal is timely under 28 U.S.C.§1446(b).1
II. PLEADINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT
2. True and correct copies 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.
III. STATEMENT OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. 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 courts 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 costs, and is between citizens of different States.”2
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) because the state court where the State Court Action has 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.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas in that he resides in and is domiciled in the state of Texas.3
1 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999).
2 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1).
3 See Plaintiff’s Original Petition (the “Complaint”) at ¶2.
5. Defendant, Trustee is not a citizen of Texas. When determining citizenship of a trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which controls, not the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust.4
6. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is now and was at the commencement of this action and all intervening times, a national banking association that has its principal office in California, as stated in its charter. Therefore, as a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States, Deutsche Bank and thus Trustee are citizens of California for diversity purposes.5
7. Since Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and Defendant is a citizen of a state other than Texas, complete diversity of citizenship exists.6
B. Amount in Controversy
8. 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 matter jurisdiction.7 Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.8
9. When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district courts query whether a plaintiff’s state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal, alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum.9
If the petition does not allege a specific amount of damages, the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.10
4 Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464, 100 S. Ct. 1779, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980).
5 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006).
6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
7 See 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).
8 See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).
9 See S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 492 (5th Cir.1996).
10 See Lewis v. State Farm Lloyds, 205 F. Supp. 2d 706, 708 (S.D. Tex. 2002) citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 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 bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal is proper).
The removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it “facially apparent” that the plaintiff’s claimed damages likely exceed $75,000.00.11 In this instance, Plaintiff’s Complaint makes it facially apparent that Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceed $75,000.00 given that Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief that would preclude Defendant from conducting a foreclosure sale on the collateral securing the subject loan and the value of the property exceeds $75,000.00.
10. The filing of the present suit seeks to stop and has halted a foreclosure attempt by Defendant on property located at 16543 Inwood Cove, San Antonio, Texas 78248 (the “Property”).12 The value of the Property according to the Bexar County Appraisal District for 2021 is no less than $456,350.00. See Exhibit D.
11. As Plaintiff references in his Complaint, he seeks injunctive relief precluding Trustee from foreclosing on the Property based on a contention that Trustee is precluded from doing so by the applicable statute of limitations.13
12. Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged in the petition for removal that support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.14 “In 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.”15 Plaintiff seeks relief which has and will continue to preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations or Defendant’s right to foreclose on and take possession of the subject property.
13. “[W]hen 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.”16
11 Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir.1995).
12 See Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 8.
13 See Complaint at ¶¶ 34-39 and Prayer.
14 Menendez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 364 Fed. Appx. 62, 66, 2010 WL 445470, 2 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (citing Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas, Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir. 2003)).
15 Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977).
16 Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961).
“[T]he 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.”17 Also, where a party seeks to quiet title or undo a foreclosure, the object of the litigation is the property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property.18
The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than $412,015.00 per the records of the Guadalupe County Appraisal District for 2021. See Exhibit D. The value of the Property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00 for diversity purposes.
V. JURY DEMAND
14. Plaintiff has not made any known jury demand in the State Court Action.
VI. CONCLUSION
15. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks the Court to remove this suit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Michael F. Hord Jr.
Michael F. Hord Jr.
State Bar No. 00784294
Federal I.D. No. 16035
Eric C. Mettenbrink
State Bar No. 24043819
Federal I.D. No. 569887
HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C.
1415 Louisiana,
36th Floor Houston,
Texas 77002-2772
Tel 713-220-9182 / Fax 713-223-9319
E-mail: mhord@hirschwest.com
Email: emettenbrink@hirschwest.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 10th day of January, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal was forwarded as follows:
James Minerve
13276 N Highway 183, Ste. 209
Austin, Texas 78750
(888) 819-1440 (Office)
(210) 336-5867 (Cell)
(888) 230-6397 (Fax)
Email: jgm@minervelaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff GLORIA JO FLOYD (LIT: Who is Gloria?)
Via Email and US Mail
/s/ Michael F. Hord Jr. Michael F. Hord Jr.
Government Bad Actor: Outgoing Judge Conspires With Deutsche Bank Lawyer to Delay Justice
Outgoing Judge Morris grants Deutsche Bank summary judgment on last day in corrupt order to delay time-barred foreclosure case.
Hummel Returns With Special Needs Leona Filis Who is the Latest Lawyer to Violate Sealing Rules
Homeowner Jeremy Hummels case has just ended with Federal Judge Charles Eskridge dismissal with prejudice, but Filis will take the case.
Wild West Hired Guns Misfire: PHH ONITY’s Cooked-Up n’ Cockamamie Arguments Implode
Judge Werlein recused in July and hence ONITY’s argument is frivolous, and their motion for summary judgment violates court procedures.
