Gustafson v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Amal Gustafson appeals the district court’s orders denying her motion to remand and dismissing her suit for failure to file a timely opposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Gustafson first argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to remand her case to state court. We disagree. Fairly read, Gustafson’s state-court complaint stated that she sought “restitution ‘for all sums received by Defendant with respect to the mortgages, including, without limitation, interest payments, fees, and premiums received upon selling the mortgages at an inflated value.’ ” The district court did not err, on the basis of this language, in concluding that Gustafson placed in controversy the value of all the mortgage payments she had made to date, nor in concluding that that sum was over $75,000.

Gustafson also argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her suit for failure to file a timely opposition. We disagree. Although we agree that SunTrust was not materially prejudiced by Gustafson’s failure to file a timely opposition, and that other remedies might have been available, we will not reverse the district court’s…