eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-09

William Burch v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-11175     Document: 00515568148          Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/17/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-11175                         September 17, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
William Paul Burch,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CV-645
Before Stewart, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Proceeding pro se, William Paul Burch filed a civil action in state court
against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan), seeking to quiet title on
real property located at 2531 Gerry Way in Lancaster, Texas. JPMorgan
removed the action, asserting that there was federal jurisdiction based on
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-11175      Document: 00515568148           Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/17/2020
No. 19-11175
diversity of citizenship and alleging that the amount-in-controversy
requirement was satisfied because the appraised market value of the property
was $105,290. The district court denied Burch’s motion to remand, and it
dismissed the action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The district court denied Burch’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good
faith. By moving for IFP status in this court, Burch is challenging the district
court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Burch argues that his case does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).          He asserts that the amount in
controversy is the amount of the mortgage lien that he sought to have
released; this amount, he contends, was only $33,765. He arguess that,
because there was no federal jurisdiction, the district court’s judgment is
void, and the matter should be remanded to state court.
The federal diversity statute provides, in pertinent part, that “district
courts shall have 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—(1) citizens of different States.” § 1332(a)(1). The
federal removal statute allows defendants to remove an action to federal court
if the federal district court would have original jurisdiction based on diversity
of citizenship and no defendant “is a citizen of the State in which such action
is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.,
    385 F.3d 568
    , 572 (5th Cir. 2004).
“[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the
defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not
contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,
    574 U.S. 81
    , 87 (2014). “[A] defendant’s
2
Case: 19-11175      Document: 00515568148            Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/17/2020
No. 19-11175
notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the
amount is required by [28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)] only when the plaintiff
contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.”
    Id. at 89. 
              We have recognized “the principle that 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.” Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp.,
    296 F.2d 545
    , 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961). Here, because Burch did not contest
JPMorgan’s plausible allegation as to the amount in controversy based on the
value of the property, and the district court did not question it, JPMorgan
was not required to submit evidence to establish the amount in controversy.
See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co.,
    LLC, 574 U.S. at 87
    , 89. Thus, Burch
has not shown that his jurisdictional challenge involves a nonfrivolous issue.
Burch has not addressed the merits of his claims or otherwise
challenged the propriety of the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it
is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann
v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus,
Burch has abandoned any challenge to the propriety of the district court’s
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See
    id. Given the foregoing, 
    Burch has failed to show that “the appeal
involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).”
Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Accordingly, his IFP motions are DENIED, and his
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See id.; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
3