United States Fourth Circuit

In plaintiffs' interlocutory appeals challenging the district court's denial of their motions to remand their cases to state court, arising from their individual complaints against various financial entities alleging violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law, given the circumstances, where the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in federal court that alleged facts giving rise to federal diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 after their cases were removed and prior to moving to remand, it need not be decided whether the cases were improperly removed as the amended complaints provided an independent basis for the district court to retain jurisdiction.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/26/2010
• Decided 05/03/2010
• Published 05/03/2010

Judges

• Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Edwin David Hoskins, The Law Offices of E. David Hoskins, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. James Christopher Martin, Reed Smith, LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Thomas L. Allen, John M. McIntyre, David J. de Jesus, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Gerard J. Gaeng, Rosenberg, Martin, Greenberg, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees Residential Funding Company, LLC, and Sovereign Bank; LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Victoria R. Collado, Andrew D. LeMar, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, PC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Banc One Financial Services, Incorporated; Philip M. Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Premier Financial Corporation; Alexander Y. Thomas, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, Virginia, Andrew C. Bernasconi, Reed Smith LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Banc One Financial Services, Incorporated.