U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Jefferson

• Citation: 314 F.Supp.3d 768
• Decision Date: 21 May 2018
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. H–18–0761
• Parties: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee Under The Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of May 1, 2006 GSAMP Trust 2006–HE3 Mortgage Pass–Through Certificates Series 2006–HE3, Plaintiff, v. Dezra JEFFERSON and Vincent Jefferson, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

314 F.Supp.3d 768

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee Under The Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of May 1, 2006 GSAMP Trust 2006–HE3 Mortgage Pass–Through Certificates Series 2006–HE3, Plaintiff,

v.Dezra JEFFERSON and Vincent Jefferson, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H–18–0761

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed May 21, 2018

Clifton Bradley Kitchens, Mackie Wolf, et al., Rex Leroy Kesler, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, Mark Douglas Cronenwett, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Dezra Jefferson, Humble, TX, pro se.

Vincent Jefferson, Humble, TX, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND AND ORDER ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM FILING FUTURE NOTICES OF REMOVAL WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

SIM LAKE, UNITED DISTRICT JUDGE

On March 9, 2018, defendants, Dezra Jefferson and Vincent Jefferson, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443, 1446, and 1447(b), removed this action from the County Court of Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, where it was pending under Cause No. 1094386.¹ On April 13, 2018, plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2006 GSAMP Trust 2006–HE3 Mortgage Pass–Through Certificates Series 2006–HE3, filed Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Brief in Support ("Plaintiff's Motion to Remand") (Docket Entry No. 9) seeking not only an order remanding this action but also injunctive relief. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and request for injunctive relief will be granted.

I. Background ²

This action arises from a post-foreclosure eviction proceeding related to a single-family residence located at 19911 Chaste Tree Lane, Humble, Texas 77338 (the "Property"). Plaintiff filed its Original Petition for Forcible Detainer against the defendants on April 18, 2017, in the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 4, Place 2, Harris County, Texas.³ Defendants were served with a Citation and copy of the plaintiff's petition on May 1, 2017.⁴ Following a hearing attended by both the plaintiff and the defendants a judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff on May 9, 2017. The judgment stated that "[n]o writ of possession will issue before May 16, 2017."⁵ On May 15, 2017, defendants filed their Notice to Appeal a Judgment in an Eviction Case in the Justice of the Peace Court, Harris County, Texas Precinct 4, Place 2.⁶ On June 12, 2017, defendants' appeal received Case No. 1094386 in Harris County Court of Law No. 2.⁷ On July 3, 2017, defendants removed Case No. 1094386 to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443, 1446, and 1447 (b).⁸ On July 11, 2017, plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion to Remand,⁹ which the court granted on October 27, 2017.¹⁰

On November 9, 2017, defendants filed a Notice of Stay and Notice of Bankruptcy Case filing in the state court action.¹¹ On January 23, 2018, plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Stay stating that "[m]ovant ... holds a security interest in: 19911 CHASTE TREE LANE, HUMBLE, TX 77338,"¹²

Movant purchased the Property on March 3, 2017 at 10:48 am at a foreclosure sale. A copy of the recorded foreclosure sale deed is attached hereto. The sale was completed when the foreclosure was conducted in accordance with the law and provisions of the deed of trust... The lien and loan were both extinguished by the foreclosure, and title of the Property was vested in Movant upon completion of the foreclosure sale. A Substitute Trustee's Deed was filed and recorded March 23, 2017, providing notice of the conveyance of title of the Property to movant.¹³

On February 22, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Granting In–Rem Relief from Automatic Stay After Hearing,¹⁴ and on March 1, 2018, the County Court at Law reactivated Case No. 1094386.¹⁵ On March 9, 2018, the defendants removed the action to this court.¹⁶

II. Notice of Removal

Defendants removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443, 1446, and 1447(b)

on grounds that the Defendants[ ] obtained an order from the United States District Court in 2012, case 04:12–cv–01944, whereby the ... plaintiff [in] the action being removed to this Court, was a defendant in Case # 04:12–cv–01944. Plaintiff previously stipulated to a judgment in favor of defendants, Dezra Jefferson and Vincent Jefferson. To date, they have never complied with the order of the Court or stipulated agreement. The Court further ruled that the United States District Court shall maintain jurisdiction of this issue to enforce the stipulated judgment. Additionally, plaintiff in this action w[as] previously ordered to present original documents showing that [it] had any standing to represent the trust pool. Plaintiff has ignored the order an[d] continued to ignore that [it] ha[s] no standing and additionally ha[s] avoided and evaded the United States District Court. [It] ha[s] committed not only fraudulent actions upon the Court but also malicious prosecution, violation of civil rights, banking fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and violation of 15 USC 1692. Plaintiff has repeatedly violated the order and continued attacking defendants as to obtain an order of eviction through the state courts of Texas. The federally secured rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982 and 1983 the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution are being directly and systematically impaired and infringed by the violation of the order issued in unconstitutional statutory laws and customs, practices, and policies having the force and effect of law in the State of Texas.¹⁷

Citing Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965), defendants argue that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)

because the Justice Courts of Harris County, and of Texas generally, have and enforce rules which are oppressive to economically disadvantaged defendants, as well as discriminatory to pro se litigants and accordingly do not equally respect or evenly enforce private rights to due process of law, even as defined by Texas State Law, effectively denying equal access to the Courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 – 1982.¹⁸

Asserting that " 28 U.S.C. § 1443 [, c]ivil rights removal differs from Federal Question or Diversity jurisdiction removal precisely because there is NO requirement that the diversity jurisdiction be apparent or the federal question be presented on the face of the complaint,"¹⁹ defendants argue that "[r]emoval is to act as an injunction against civil rights violations in State Courts."²⁰ Defendants argue that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367²¹ and that "[t]his Court is the proper forum to adjudicate this matter because of the 2012 United States District Court order clearly stating that fact."²²

III. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff seeks remand because "1) the Notice of Removal filed by Defendants ... is untimely; 2) civil rights removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 is improper; and 3) diversity jurisdiction does not exist."²³ Plaintiff also argues that "[t]his case cannot be removed ... because Defendants are in-state citizens."²⁴

A. Standard of Review

Article III § 2 of the United States Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." This Constitutional mandate is supplemented by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 recognizes federal question jurisdiction in suits "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." For this purpose "[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action." Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, A Division of Litton Systems, Inc., 723 F.2d 1173, 1178 (5th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).

"[W]hat ‘determines jurisdiction’ is the ‘nature of the claim’ asserted, and ‘not the possible defenses to that claim.’ " Id. (quoting Cox v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 672 F.2d 421, 422 (5th Cir. 1982) (federal question jurisdiction is not satisfied merely because "the dispute is in some way connected with a federal matter") ). Section 1332 recognizes diversity jurisdiction over civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. Id. at 1177 ("The required diversity under section 1332(a) (1) must be complete: where one or more plaintiffs sue one or more defendants, each plaintiff must be of a different citizenship than each defendant.").

The general removal statute allows a defendant to remove a case to the federal district court for the district and division within which the action is pending, provided that the district court possesses original jurisdiction. 28 u.s.c. § 1441 (a). " ‘Original jurisdiction, in non-maritime claims, lies where the conditions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 [federal question] or 1332 [diversity] are satisfied.’ " Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 603 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 2010). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must have statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a claim. See Home Builders Association of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper." Manguno v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). Any doubts as to the propriety of the removal should be construed strictly in favor of remand. Id.

The procedures by which a defendant may remove an action to federal court are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Pursuant thereto a notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which...