David L. Nelson and Savannah Nelson v. First Bank d/b/a First Bank Mortgage, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2001-2, Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2001-2 f/k/a Bankers Trust Company, AVT Title Services, LLC, and PHH Mortgage Corporation

Summary

This document is an order and report-and-recommendation from a United States magistrate judge in a mortgage foreclosure dispute. The court recommends remanding the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendants had not submitted sufficient evidence of the parties' citizenship at the summary-judgment stage. It alternatively recommends granting the defendants' summary-judgment motion if they provide evidence establishing diverse citizenship, while explaining that the plaintiffs' failure to respond alone cannot support default summary judgment.

Holdings

1. A party invoking diversity jurisdiction must provide evidence sufficient to support a jury finding of each party's citizenship at the summary-judgment stage. Because the record lacked that evidence, the court could not enter summary judgment and should remand the removed action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. A plaintiff asserting an equitable right of redemption must show an equitable or legal right to the property, readiness, ability, or willingness to redeem by paying the valid liens, and assertion of the right before foreclosure. A mere purchase agreement and statement of willingness to satisfy the debt do not establish readiness, ability, or willingness, and tender of the amount due is a necessary prerequisite to recovery of title.
3. A court may not grant a default summary judgment solely because the nonmovant failed to respond. The movant must independently establish the absence of a genuine dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
4. A request for injunctive relief is not an independent cause of action and cannot survive when the underlying substantive claim fails.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had sufficient evidence of the parties' citizenship to exercise diversity subject-matter jurisdiction at the summary-judgment stage.
2. Whether the defendants could obtain summary judgment on the Nelsons' equitable right of redemption claim based on the absence of tender and the failure to show that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to redeem.
3. Whether the defendants could obtain summary judgment based solely on the Nelsons' failure to respond to the motion.
4. Whether the Nelsons' request for injunctive relief could survive absent an underlying substantive cause of action.

Disposition

remanded