Samuel v. Doe, No. 3:2018cv02457 - Document 7 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 5 Motion to Remand. This case is remanded to Dallas County Justice Court, Precinct 2, Place 2. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 10/31/2018) (epm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Samuel v. Doe Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PHILIP SAMUEL, Plaintiff, VS. JOE DOE and all occupants, Defendants. § § § § Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-2457-D § § § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Philip Samuel’s (“Samuel’s”) motion to remand this removed case to Dallas County Justice Court, Precinct 2, Place 2, is granted because the case was removed based on diversity of citizenship and the removing defendants, Joe Doe (“Doe”) and all occupants, allege in their notice of removal that they are Texas citizens.1 I Proceeding pro se, defendants removed this real estate foreclosure action from Dallas County justice court to this court based on diversity of citizenship. Samuel moves to remand on the ground, inter alia, that Doe is a Texas citizen and that this case is not removable based 1 Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly. Dockets.Justia.com on diversity of citizenship.2 Defendants have not responded to the motion, and it is ripe for decision.3 II The court need not address Samuel’s other grounds for remand because he correctly maintains that this case could not have been removed to this court based on diversity of citizenship since Doe, a properly-served in-state citizen, is a defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). In other words, even though the notice of removal alleges that there is complete diversity of citizenship (a New York plaintiff and Texas defendants),4 the removal statute does not permit removal to a federal district court that sits in Texas when there is a properlyjoined and served Texas-citizen defendant.5 Defendants’ notice of removal alleges that defendants, including Doe, are Texas citizens and that they have been served. The court 2 Samuel also contends that Doe has not satisfied the minimum amount in controversy. The court need not address this ground of his motion. 3 Samuel filed his motion on September 28, 2018. Defendants’ response was due October 19, 2018. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7.1(e) (“A response and brief to an opposed motion must be filed within 21 days from the date the motion is filed.”). 4 At one point in the notice of removal, defendants allege that they, too, are citizens of New York, but this apparently is a typographical error. 5 This type of defect is procedural. See, e.g., Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 603 F.3d 290, 295 n.18 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[A] procedural defect is any defect that does not go to the question of whether the case originally could have been brought in federal district court.” (citing Williams v. AC Spark Plugs Div. of Gen’l Motors Corp., 985 F.2d 783, 787 (5th Cir.1993))). This means that “the plaintiff must object to the improper removal within thirty days after the removal, or he waives his objection.” Williams, 985 F.2d at 787. Samuel timely moved to remand on September 28, 2018, within 30 days of the September 14, 2018 improper removal. -2- therefore grants Samuel’s motion to remand on the ground that removal was improper. * * * Accordingly, Samuel’s motion to remand is granted, and this case is remanded to Dallas County Justice Court, Precinct 2, Place 2. The clerk shall effect the remand according to the usual procedure. SO ORDERED. October 31, 2018. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR JUDGE -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
