govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_25-cv-15808-0

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
JULES ALCIDE, LINDA NZEADIBE and 
JOEL OYEKUNLE 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
Civil Action No.: 2:25-cv-15808 
 
 
 
 OPINION AND ORDER 
 
CECCHI, District Judge. 
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to remand (ECF No. 8) filed by 
Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“Plaintiff” or “Chase”). Defendants filed 
an opposition to the motion. ECF No s. 11, 12. The Court decides this motion without oral 
argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 (b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion 
is GRANTED. 
WHEREAS this case arises out of foreclosure proceedings initiated by Chase in the 
Superior Court of New Jersey , Chancery Division, Essex County in December 2008. ECF No 
8-4, Exhibit A (“Compl.”). Final judgment in the foreclosure proceedings was entered in 2010 
in Plaintiff’s favor, and an amended final judgment was entered in 2014. ECF No. 8-4, Exhibits 
C & D. On August 20, 2024, Defendant Alcide moved to stay the upcoming sheriff’s sale of the 
property at issue. ECF No. 8 -4, Exhibit H . The motion was denied , and the sale proceeded . 
ECF No. 8 -4, Exhibits I & J. Alcide then moved to set aside the New Jersey Court’s August 
2024 order denying the stay. ECF No. 8-4, Exhibit K. That motion was denied. ECF No. 8-4, 
Exhibit L. Defendants then appealed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. PageID:
<pageID>
2 
ECF No. 8-4, Exhibit M. That appeal was dismissed. ECF No. 8-4, Exhibit U. Defendants then 
removed the case to this Court in September 2025. ECF No. 1. Defendants state in their removal 
filings that the New Jersey Appellate Division deprived them of fundamental rights by 
dismissing the foreclosure appeal and that Plaintiffs violated the federal Fair Housing Act by 
discriminating against Defendants. Id. at 2–3, 7; and 
WHEREAS the Court lacks federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 
Plaintiff’s Complaint raises only issues of state law. See Compl. While Defendants maintain 
that Plaintiff violated federal law, a case is not removable to federal court simply because the 
defendant raises a federal defense. Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 228 (3d 
Cir. 1995). Rather, “a court determines if there is federal question jurisdiction in removal cases 
by use of the well -pleaded complaint rule, which provides that there is federal question 
jurisdiction only when the face of a properly pleaded complaint asserts a federal questio n.” 
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Harding, 655 F. App’x 113, 114 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Caterpillar 
Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) ). Here, r emoval is improper b ecause Chase’s 
complaint does not raise an issue of federal law; and 
WHEREAS even if the complaint raised an issue of federal law or if the Court could 
exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Defendants’ removal is untimely. Under 
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) a defendant must file their notice of removal within 30 days of being 
served with the complaint. Chase filed the initial foreclosure action in 2008. So, Defendants’ 
2025 removal is untimely. 
Accordingly, IT IS on this 22nd day of May, 2026; 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED; and it is 
further PageID:
<pageID>
3 
ORDERED that the action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex 
County; and it is further 
ORDERED that this case be and hereby is CLOSED. 
SO ORDERED. 
____________________________________ 
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J. 
s/ Claire C. Cecchi PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight