FREDA L. WOLFSON, District Judge.
This matter having been brought before the Court by
1. Plaintiffs initially filed this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, on November 22, 2011. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Defendant Real Time's and Bank of America Home Loan Servicing L.P.'s ("BOA's") (collectively, "Defendants'") refusal to modify Plaintiffs' home equity loan on their home located at 478 Tivoli Court, Marlboro, NJ 07751 ("the Property"). In that complaint, Plaintiffs assert a Truth in Lending Act,15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA") claim and several state law claims, citing New York law for one of the state law claims.
2. On January 6, 2012, the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, entered an order restraining BOA and Real Time from selling, assigning, or transferring the Property while the suit was pending.
3. That same day, the case was removed to this Court by Real Time. BOA did not join in the removal, as is proper since there is no indication in the record that BOA had been served prior to the removal.
4. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs sought an entry of default against BOA and Real Time through the Clerk of this Court. In response to their request, the Clerk's Office requested additional information to confirm whether service was proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk's Office response, however, was returned as undeliverable with a note from the post office stating: "NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED. UNABLE TO FORWARD." The address the Clerk's Office mailed to was the one listed on the Notice of Removal as Plaintiffs' address: 478 Tivoli Court, Marlboro, NJ 07751. No electronic notice was transmitted to Plaintiffs as they were not registered for electronic delivery.
5. Ultimately, the Clerk's Office denied Plaintiffs' request for an entry of default against the Defendants, noting that Real Time had filed an answer and that "service was not made on defendant Bank of America Home Loan Servicing." Docket Entry dated February 21, 2012. On March 16, 2012, Plaintiffs requested that summons issue so that they could make personal service of the complaint upon both BOA and Real Time.
6. Also on March 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar claims, although not referencing the TILA statute, and incorporating additional facts. In a decision issued earlier today on Defendants' motion to strike that complaint, Magistrate Judge Goodman ruled that Plaintiffs were entitled to file that amended complaint as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
7. Plaintiffs' motion to remand was filed on March 9, 2012, in the midst of the service and default issues outlined above. In that motion, Plaintiffs argue that remand is appropriate because they were never served with the Notice of Removal and they also attack the jurisdiction of this Court.
8. According to Plaintiffs, their initial complaint makes clear that their mailing address is 108-37, 69th Road, Forest Hills, NY 11375, and it was Real Time that inappropriately relied upon the New Jersey address to which their home equity line of credit was attached in serving the Notice there. Moreover, they argue, that the docket incorrectly reflected the New Jersey address is Real Time's doing—not theirs. Indeed, a review of Plaintiffs' initial complaint reveals that the New York address is listed as their address on the last page of the document. In opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, Real Time argues that the New York address is not a valid address either. As proof of this assertion, Real Time attaches a copy of an envelope mailed to the New York address that was returned to sender. The note from the post office states "NO MAIL RECEPTACLE. UNABLE TO FORWARD."
9. "After filing the notice of removal with the federal court, the defendant must give written notice of removal to the plaintiff. . . ." Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
10. In my view, Real Time made a good faith attempt at notice in this case by initially mailing the January 6, 2012 Notice of Removal to the Property address, which is a valid postal address even if it Plaintiffs no longer receive mail there and, further, by mailing subsequent documents,
11. Even if Real Time's efforts did not constitute a good faith attempt, Plaintiffs January 26th letter proves that they became aware of the removal around two weeks after it was accomplished. Thus, the delay experienced by Plaintiffs was not significant.
12. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not argued that they suffered prejudice,
13. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiffs availed themselves of this Court's process on February 2, 2012 by requesting that the Clerk enter default against BOA and Real Time on that date. Some courts have held that a plaintiff who fails to object upon receiving actual notice of removal and actively participates in the federal proceedings waives his or her right to seek remand.
14. Turning to Plaintiff's jurisdictional attack, Plaintiffs focus their arguments on a purported lack of diversity jurisdiction. However, they fail to address whether federal question jurisdiction existed at the time of the removal; Plaintiffs' federal TILA claim in their initial complaint clearly creates subject matter jurisdiction in this Court.
15. Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to remand. An appropriate Order shall follow.