Lord v. U.S. Bank National Association

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tammy Lord
v. Case No. 26-cv-167-LM-AJ
U.S. Bank National Association1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff Tammy Lord brings this action
against Defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, alleging that
Defendant’s claim to her residence in Goffstown, New Hampshire
is improper.2 Plaintiff requests that the court quiet title in
her favor as to her Goffstown residence; issue a declaratory
judgment resolving the parties’ rights and interests in the
property; and, if the court determines that Defendant holds a
valid and enforceable interest in the mortgage and promissory
note for Plaintiff’s residence, enjoin Defendant from initiating
or pursuing any foreclosure sale or enforcement action over the
1 Defendant states that Plaintiff misidentifies Defendant at
various times as “U.S. Bank National Association” and “U.S. Bank
National Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely
in its Purported Capacity as Trustee for RASC Series 2005-AHL1.”
Doc. No. 6 at n.1. Defendant asserts that its proper
affiliation with Plaintiff is in its capacity as “U.S. Bank
Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee, as Successor-
in-Interest to U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for
Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-AHLl[] . . . .” Id. at
1.
2 Plaintiff shares her residence with her husband, Steven
LeClerc. Doc. No. 4 at 5.
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 7

2
residence. Doc. No. 1-1 at 2–3; Doc. No. 4 at 18–28. Plaintiff
initially filed this lawsuit in Hillsborough County Superior
Court, Northern District. Defendant removed the case to this
court, citing diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1332, 1441, and 1446. See Doc. No. 1. Presently before the
court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to the
Superior Court. Doc. No. 3.
Legal Standard
I. Motion to Remand
When faced with a motion to remand, a federal court must
determine whether it “would have had original jurisdiction of
the case had it been filed in that court.” BIW Deceived v.
Local S6, Indus. Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of Am.,
IAMAW Dist. Lodge 4, 132 F.3d 824, 830 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting
Grubbs v. General Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699, 702 (1972)).
The burden is on the removing defendant to show “that federal
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.” New Hampshire
v. 3M Co., 665 F. Supp. 3d 215, 221 (D.N.H. 2023), aff’d, 132
F.4th 556 (1st Cir. 2025). That defendant “must therefore make
a ‘colorable’ showing that a basis for federal jurisdiction
exists.” Danca v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 185 F.3d 1, 4
(1st Cir. 1999) (quoting BIW Deceived, 132 F.3d at 832). “[I]f
federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a federal court must remand to
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 7

3
state court.” Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., L.L.C., 35
F.4th 44, 52 (1st Cir. 2022).
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction[.]”
Volkswagen de P.R., Inc. v. Puerto Rico Labor Rels. Bd., 454
F.2d 38, 43 (1972). “They possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Congress has granted [the district courts of the United
States] jurisdiction over two main kinds of cases.
District courts have power to decide diversity cases—
suits between citizens of different States as to any
matter valued at more than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). And they have power to decide federal-question
cases—suits “arising under” federal law. § 1331.
Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 7–8 (2022).
Discussion
I. Diversity of Parties Named in the Complaint
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s removal was improper
because Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing
complete diversity of citizenship.3 Doc. No. 3 at 2. Plaintiff
3 Although Plaintiff does not challenge the jurisdictional
minimum amount, the evidence before the court shows that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Where a plaintiff
seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, as is the case here,
“the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 3 of 7

4
elaborates by stating that Defendant “alter[ed] its identity in
the Notice of Removal” to U.S. Bank in its capacity as trustee,4
“in an attempt to establish federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 2–3.
However, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant “alter[ed] its
identity” is unavailing. “Jurisdiction is normally ascertained
from the face of the state court complaint that triggered the
removal.” Danca v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 185 F.3d 1,
4 (1st Cir. 1999). “[T]he determination of jurisdiction is
based only on the allegations in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint—not on any issue the defendant may raise.” Royal
Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); JUAN COTTO, v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., LIGGETT
GROUP LLC, CUMBERLAND FARMS OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., & WALGREENS
OF MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Defendants., No. CV 25-13333-MGM, 2026 WL
1146111, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 28, 2026) (“Federal courts
object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert.
Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977); see, e.g., Mojtabai v.
Mojtabai, 4 F.4th 77, 84 (1st Cir. 2021). The object of the
litigation is the mortgage loan for Plaintiff’s Goffstown
residence, which, as of June 12, 2024, had an outstanding
balance approximately $293,070.22. Doc. No. 1-4 at 2.
Accordingly, the jurisdictional minimum amount is satisfied.
4 The full title Defendant uses in its Notice of Removal is
“U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee, as
Successor-in-Interest to U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee for Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home
Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-AHL1[.]” Doc. No. 1 at 1.
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 4 of 7

5
typically rely on the factual allegations in the complaint to
determine the citizenship of all parties and whether complete
diversity exists[.]”).
Here, the facts Plaintiff alleged about the parties’
citizenship in her state court complaint establish complete
diversity. Plaintiff alleges, and Defendant does not dispute,
that she is a resident of New Hampshire and that Defendant —
which Plaintiff identifies in her complaint as “U.S. Bank
National Association” — has an Ohio address. Doc. No. 1-1 at 2;
Doc. No. 4 at 6 ¶ 2; Doc. No. 6 at 3 & n.2.
Ultimately, Plaintiff is “the master of the complaint, and
therefore controls much about her suit.” Royal Canin, 604 U.S.
at 35 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For the
reasons stated, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint support
that complete diversity exists. Therefore, the court has
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s removal
was proper.
II. Outstanding Arguments
In further support of her remand motion, Plaintiff
questions whether Defendant demonstrated “authority over the
alleged trust’s assets” (Doc. No. 3 at 3); disputes that the
trust over which Defendant claims authority is valid (Doc. No. 7
at 1); and asserts that Defendant failed to provide “information
regarding the citizenship of the trust’s beneficiaries,
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 5 of 7

6
certificate holders, and other members” to establish diversity
citizenship. Doc. No. 3 at 3–4.
Because the only named Defendant is “U.S. Bank National
Association” (Doc. No. 1-1 at 2),5 the court declines to opine on
any issues about U.S. Bank in its capacity as trustee, including
its authority over trust assets and whether Defendant, as a
trustee, was required to prove the citizenship of its
beneficiaries.6
The court also declines to opine on the validity of the
trust at issue in this case, which would involve prematurely
wading into the merits of this case. See Delta Dental of Rhode
Island v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 942 F. Supp.
5 To the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint misidentifies
Defendant as being the trustee of “RASC Series 2005-AHL1[,]”
(see Doc. No. 4 at 6 ¶ 2) the court declines to opine on the
proper trust and Defendant’s authority over that trust at this
stage. As stated above, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant
has an Ohio address and complete diversity exists based on the
facts alleged in the Complaint. See Doc. No. 1-1 at 2; Doc. No.
4 at 6 ¶ 2 (stating Defendant has an Ohio address).
6 Nevertheless, the court observes that Plaintiff
misconstrues the relevant law on this subject. “[W]here a
national banking association trustee is a party, only the
trustee’s citizenship matters—not that of the trust’s
beneficiaries.” 1900 Cap. Tr. III By US Bank Tr. Nat’l Ass'n v.
Sidelinger, No. 2:19-CV-220-DBH, 2021 WL 864951, at *3 & n.3 (D.
Me. Mar. 8, 2021) (collecting cases and summarizing relevant
Supreme Court precedent, including Americold, Carden, and
Navarro). Plaintiff does not appear to contest Defendant’s
assertion that, in its capacity as trustee, it is located in
Delaware. See Doc. No. 3 at 3. Accordingly, if Defendant as
trustee became a party to this lawsuit, and was named in the
manner Defendant asserts is proper, there appears to be complete
diversity between the parties.
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 6 of 7

7
740, 745 (D.R.I. 1996) (“The motion to remand does not reach the
merits of the underlying dispute but instead decides only the
question of whether removal to the federal court was proper.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should deny
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 3).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to
file any objections within the specified time waives the right
to appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 13, 2026
cc: Tammy Lord, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00167-LM-AJ Document 17 Filed 05/13/26 Page 7 of 7