Medberry et al v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
__________________________________________
)
ELIZABETH A. MEDBERRY and 	)
ESTATE OF GEORGE MEDBERRY, Jr.1 	)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	C.A. No. 26-208-JJM-AEM
)
CARRIINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, 	)
LLC, KORDE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; and 	)
AMY VAZQUEZ, 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
Before the Court is Elizabeth Medberry’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7. For
the reasons stated below, the Court denies Ms. Medberry’s Motion for Remand.2
I. 	BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from Defendants’ Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC,
Korde & Associates, P.C., and Amy Vazques attempt to foreclose Ms. Medberry’s
home.
	Id. at 5-7. 	After Ms. Medberry brought this action in the Rhode Island
Superior Court, Defendants removed it here and asserted that this Court possesses
1 Ms. Medberry brought this action as a self-represented litigant. ECF No. 1-
1 at 1. 	She also purported to bring this action on behalf of co-borrower George
Medberry Jr.’s estate.
	See ECF No. 7 at 27. 	While Ms. Medberry undoubtedly
possesses the ability to represent herself, she lacks the ability to do so on another
individual’s behalf.
See DRI LR Gen. 205(a)(2).
2 Alternatively, Ms. Medberry seeks this Court’s permission to file an amended
complaint. ECF No. 7 at 1.
Case 1:26-cv-00208-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship and the
existence of federal questions arising out of Ms. Medberry’s Complaint. ECF No. 1 at
1-5. 	In response, Ms. Medberry has moved to remand this case back to state court.
ECF No. 7.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, litigants may properly remove a civil case from
a state court to a federal court so long as the relevant federal court possesses original
jurisdiction over the dispute.
Ten Taxpayer Citizens Grp. V. Cape Wind Assocs., 373
F.3d 183, 190-91 (1st Cir. 2004). 	In this context, a federal court has original
jurisdiction when the plaintiff
could have filed their action in federal court in the first
instance.
	See id. 	Typically, parties seeking a federal court’s assistance must
demonstrate that they either have: (1) federal-question jurisdiction (i.e., the case
“arises under” federal law) or; (2) that diversity jurisdiction exists (i.e., complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties exists and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000).
	See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 	In the removal context, the party
seeking to establish diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of persuasion.
	See
Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., 811 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 2016). 	Specifically,
the removing party must support their jurisdictional allegations with “competent
proof,” and they must also demonstrate that diversity of citizenship existed at the
time of removal.
Id.
Here, Ms. Medberry contends that remand is proper because this Court
ostensibly lacks both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. ECF No.
Case 1:26-cv-00208-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
7 at 12-19. While Ms. Medberry readily concedes that her Complaint contains several
causes of action arising out of federal law, she nevertheless requests permission to
file an amended complaint, which would exclude her federal claims and therefore
divest this Court of federal question jurisdiction.
	Id. at 8. 	In support of this course
of action, Ms. Medberry directs this Court to the Supreme Court’s endorsement of
this practice in
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025). 3
	Id. at
8. 	Be that as it may — and offering no view on the advisability of Ms. Medberry’s
purported course of action — her attempt to excise all federal claims from her
Complaint will not alter this Court’s ability to hear this case based on its proper
exercise of
diversity jurisdiction. 	Specifically, the Court’s review of the relevant
filings reveals that complete diversity exists between these litigants and that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
With respect to the citizenship status of the plaintiffs, both Ms. Medberry and
the Estate of George Medberry, Jr., reside in Rhode Island. ECF No. 1-1 at 8. On the
other hand, none of the Defendants reside in Rhode Island. 	Specifically, Defendant
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC — a limited liability company that defines its
residency status through that of its members4 — is a citizen of Delaware, Tennessee,
3 In
Royal Canin, the Supreme Court held that litigants may permissibly
dismiss all federal causes of action from their complaints — leaving only state law
claims — to divest a federal court of federal question jurisdiction and obtain a valid
basis for remand back to state court.
See Royal Canin, 604 U.S. 22, 32-34 (2025).
4 In the context of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company resides in
every 	state 	where 	any 	of 	its 	members 	also 	reside.
	See 	D.B. 	Zwirn 	Special
Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 125 (1st Cir. 2011).
Case 1:26-cv-00208-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 05/28/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
and Wyoming. 5 ECF No. 9 at 3-4. Similarly, Defendant Korde & Associates, P.C. and
Ms. Amy Vasquez are citizens of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, respectively.
Id. 	Having found complete diversity here, the Court also determines that this case
exceeds 	the 	$75,000 	threshold 	required 	to 	satisfy 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy
requirement.
	See ECF No. 1-1 at 84 (listing the property’s estimated value at
$360,837 	and 	Ms. 	Medberry’s 	outstanding 	balance 	as 	$261,399). 	Therefore,
notwithstanding Ms. Medberry’s request to eradicate all federal causes of action from
her Complaint, the Court concludes that it properly possesses jurisdiction over this
dispute because this case satisfies the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As
a result, the Court denies Ms. Medberry’s Motion to Remand. 6
III. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the existence of diversity jurisdiction, Defendants have successfully
demonstrated that Ms. Medberry lacks a valid basis to seek remand. As a result, the
Court DENIES Ms. Medberry’s Motion for Remand, ECF No. 7.
5 In Ms. Medberry’s attempt to address this barrier to remand, she contends
that Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC must file a “sworn jurisdictional disclosure”
setting forth the identity of its members. 	ECF No. 7 at 18. 	Eager to oblige,
Carrington Mortgage Company, LLC provided this Court with a corporate disclosure
statement 	setting 	forth 	its 	residency 	status 	and 	has 	also 	provided 	additional
citizenship details in its Opposition.
See ECF No. 9 at 3-4.
6 If Ms. Medberry still seeks to eliminate all federal claims from her Complaint,
the Court grants her request for leave to file an amended complaint if she choses to
do so.
Case 1:26-cv-00208-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 05/28/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
___________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
May 27, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00208-JJM-AEM Document 12 Filed 05/28/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>