District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Mohr and MERS—named as nominee for Advanced Fin. Servs. Inc. (AFSI)—did not appear in Nationstar Mortg. LLC’s action to foreclose on Mohr’s home mortgage. The clerk of court entered their default. Thereafter Nationstar sought declaratory judgment. The court dismissed Nationstar’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in state court. The attorney affidavit that Nationstar’s counsel submitted under Local Rule 55.2(b) omitted sworn statements that Mohr is not an infant or otherwise incompetent, that he is not in military service, that the amount sought “is justly due and owing,” “that no part has been paid,” and that the “disbursements sought to be taxed” either have been or necessarily will be made.” Moreover, Nationstar’s assertion that MERS was named solely as ASFI’s nominee prevented it from using MERS’s citizenship for asserting federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ diverse citizenship. As in Airlines Reporting Corp. v. S&N Travel Inc., 857 F. Supp. 1043, Nationstar did not show MERS had “any corporate interest of its own” in the case. Further, other courts have held MERS to be a citizen of Delaware, which would destroy diversity given Nationstar’s Delaware citizenship.

District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Mohr and MERS—named as nominee for Advanced Fin. Servs. Inc. (AFSI)—did not appear in Nationstar Mortg. LLC’s action to foreclose on Mohr’s home mortgage. The clerk of court entered their default. Thereafter Nationstar sought declaratory judgment. The court dismissed Nationstar’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in state court. The attorney affidavit that Nationstar’s counsel submitted under Local Rule 55.2(b) omitted sworn statements that Mohr is not an infant or otherwise incompetent, that he is not in military service, that the amount sought “is justly due and owing,” “that no part has been paid,” and that the “disbursements sought to be taxed” either have been or necessarily will be made.” Moreover, Nationstar’s assertion that MERS was named solely as ASFI’s nominee prevented it from using MERS’s citizenship for asserting federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ diverse citizenship. As in Airlines Reporting Corp. v. S&N Travel Inc., 857 F. Supp. 1043, Nationstar did not show MERS had “any corporate interest of its own” in the case. Further, other courts have held MERS to be a citizen of Delaware, which would destroy diversity given Nationstar’s Delaware citizenship.