Boersma v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

PAGE 1 – FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JOSEPH J. BOERSMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
Case No. 6:25-cv-01840-AP
FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________
POTTER, United States Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Boersma’s Motion to Remand. Pl.’s Mot., ECF No.
8. Because the Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s motion should
be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff first brought suit in Lincoln County Circuit Court on August 1, 2025, alleging
that Defendant Wells Fargo violated Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, engaged in fraud,
and breached their contract. Notice Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1. At that time, Plaintiff alleged
that the amount in controversy was $49,000. Id. Plaintiff amended his complaint on September
11, 2025. Notice Removal Ex. B. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that “[t]he amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and fees.” FAC ¶ 4. Plaintiff seeks
“Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial but no less than $75,000” as well as
punitive damages and statutory damages. FAC ¶ 25.
Defendant then removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Notice Removal.
Case 6:25-cv-01840-AP Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 4

PAGE 2 – FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
STANDARDS
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over claims between
citizens of different states where the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). When a case has been removed from state court, the defendant bears “the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
“Normally, this burden is satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum greater than the jurisdictional
requirement.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not dispute that
there is diversity of citizenship1 but argues that the amount in controversy requirement is not
met. Plaintiff maintains that he “does not seek damages in excess of $75,000.” Pl.’s Mot. 2. He
argues that the “higher figure in the amended complaint was not intended as a jurisdictional
statement but rather an estimate including potential costs and fees.” Id. However, the Court
cannot see how Plaintiff’s amended complaint could be interpreted any other way. And the
removal statute specifically provides that “[i]f removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of
the jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the [complaint]
shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(c)(2).
“[A] district court may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that
the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d
1 The Court also finds that there is diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff is a citizen of Oregon while
Defendant Wells Fargo, a bank, is a citizen of South Dakota because that is where its main office
is located as designated in its articles of association. Def.’s Resp. 5, ECF No. 11 (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1348).
Case 6:25-cv-01840-AP Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 4

PAGE 3 – FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). Here the complaint speaks for itself. On the first page, the amended
complaint twice notes “Damages Exceeding $75,000.” FAC 1. Under “Jurisdiction and Venue,”
the complaint alleges “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest, costs,
and fees.” FAC ¶ 4. By Plaintiff’s own allegations, the amount in controversy is more than
$75,000, not including costs and fees. Further, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of at least
$75,000, as well as punitive and statutory damages. FAC ¶ 25. Based on the plain reading of the
complaint, Plaintiff seeks more than $75,000 in damages, so the amount in controversy is greater
than $75,000.
To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendant must do more, he is incorrect. Gaus,
980 F.2d at 566–67 (“If it is unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought . . . then
the defendant bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the
jurisdictional amount.”). Defendant was entitled to rely on Plaintiff’s good faith representation in
his complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff has
offered no evidence that the amounts in his complaint are incorrect.
Plaintiff seeks costs and attorney’s fees for his motion to remand; his request must be
denied. Wells Fargo properly removed this case to federal court based on the plain language in
Plaintiff’s amended complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; this was
objectively reasonable. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
To the extent Defendant seeks sanctions under Rule 11, that should also be denied. See
Def.’s Resp. 5-6, ECF No. 11. Defendant failed to follow the procedures outlined in Rule 11 for
moving for sanctions. “A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Before filing a motion for sanctions, the movant must serve the motion under
Rule 5 and allow the opposing party 21 days to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged
Case 6:25-cv-01840-AP Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 4

PAGE 4 – FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
paper. Id. Defendant did neither of these things. Further, Plaintiff is self-represented and his
motion for remand appears to be made in good faith. The Court finds no “abuse of the court
system” as Defendant argues. Def.’s Resp. 6.
Plaintiff also requests an order to produce “overdue” discovery in the interim or within 14
days if the motion to remand is denied. That request should be denied. Once this motion is fully
resolved, an appropriate discovery schedule can be set.
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff’s motion for remand should be denied.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any,
are due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections
are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
A party’s failure to timely file objections to any of these findings will be considered a
waiver of that party’s right to de novo consideration of the factual issues addressed herein and
will constitute a waiver of the party’s right to review of the findings of fact in any order or
judgment entered by a district judge. These Findings and Recommendation are not immediately
appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of judgment.
DATED this _____ day of December, 2025.
___________________________
AMY E. POTTER
United States Magistrate Judge
5th
/s/Amy E. Potter
Case 6:25-cv-01840-AP Document 18 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 4