Shehata v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denies Plaintiff Nada Shehata’s motion to remand and emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in a foreclosure-related action against PHH Mortgage Corporation. The court concludes that diversity jurisdiction exists because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Although Plaintiff raised a serious question concerning possible dual tracking under the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, the court finds no sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and denies injunctive relief.

Holdings

1. Removal was proper because complete diversity existed and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
2. Plaintiff did not show likelihood of success on the merits, even under the 'serious questions' test, because any potential HBOR violations were not material to her inability to obtain a loan modification and were cured by defendant's voluntary postponement of the foreclosure sale.

Questions Presented

1. Whether removal to federal court was proper based on diversity jurisdiction
2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order to halt foreclosure

Disposition

other