Bank of New York Mellon v. United States of America et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/30/2014. Mailed notice(tlp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
THE BANK OF NEW YORK-MELLON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT WALLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
In the matter of the motion for sanctions
against the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
and Assistant United States Attorney
JOEL R. NATHAN.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14 C 4400
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 27, 2014 this action came on for hearing on the motion by third-party defendant
Hauselman, Rappin & Olswang, Ltd. ("Hauselman Firm") for that law firm's dismissal from the
Third-Party Complaint brought against it and other third-party defendants by defendant Scott
Wallis ("Wallis") in this state court mortgage foreclosure action. But because this action had
found its way to this Court's calendar through a Notice of Removal ("Notice") brought by the
United States -- whose United States Attorney Zachary Fardon and Assistant United States
Attorney Joel R. Nathan are separate targets of Wallis' -- and because that sole predicate for
federal jurisdiction will call for remand to the state court of origin if the United States is
successful, this Court did not address the Hauselman Firm's motion.
What this Court devoted itself to instead during the June 27 hearing were some
problematic aspects of Wallis' purported predicates for escaping the removal proceedings
unharmed. Thus he has advanced, for example, a wholly frivolous insistence that this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, just one manifestation of Wallis' obvious (and obviously
mistaken) mindset that he possesses superior knowledge as to every principle of federal
jurisprudence applicable to the current proceedings.
Although this Court sought to get some home truths communicated to Wallis orally so
that he could go about doing battle on the underlying foreclosure action in the Circuit Court of
Kane County where it belonged, it has ultimately determined that Wallis' perspective (essentially
"don't bother me with the facts -- or law -- because my mind is already made up") calls for
requiring him to respond in writing in connection with the removal. Accordingly it set July 3,
2014 as a continued date for this action, expecting to establish at that time an appropriate
schedule for further proceedings in the case. But because nonlawyer Wallis may well not have
understood or appreciated some of the points made by this Court in its oral remarks on June 27,
this threshold opinion is issued to draw his attention to some fundamental truths and also to serve
as a cautionary shot across the bow.
As this Court pointed out to Wallis orally on June 27, the United States' Notice of
Removal brought the action to this federal district court without any previous filings having been
made by Wallis here. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), with its imposition on both lawyers and pro
se litigants of the obligation to exercise both subjective and objective good faith, is limited to all
federal filings, the potential sanctions contemplated in Rule 11(c) cannot literally come into play
as to any earlier state court filings by Wallis that would have failed to meet the standards of Rule
11(b). But Wallis should be keenly aware that no such insulation will attach to any written
response that he will be obligated to make in this district court. And on that score a few
cautionary comments are in order.
-2-
First, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) 1 creates an absolute entitlement to removal by the United
States where, as here, it or any of its officers or agents is targeted in a state court action (and that
is precisely what Wallis has done in this case). Such removal does not require the joinder or
consent of other defendants, as is called for under general removal statute Section 1446(a). 2
Moreover, the invocation of either or both of Sections 1442(a) and 2679(b)(2) operates to
remove the entire case to this District Court, not merely a snippet that implicates only a motion
to obtain relief limited to the United States or its officers or agents. That important jurisdictional
fact is confirmed both by the literal statutory language and by relevant caselaw -- see, e.g., Dillon
v. Miss. Military Dep't, 23 F.3d 915, 918-19 (5th Cir. 1994) and cases cited there, and see
generally 16 Moore's Federal Practice § 107.15[1][b][v]. In sum, as stated earlier, Wallis'
notions that federal jurisdiction is lacking here, or that he is not subject to that jurisdiction, are
dead wrong.
In closing it should be emphasized that this opinion does not purport to deal with all of
the flaws in Wallis' combative efforts in the underlying proceeding -- this Court spoke to a
number of those matters orally during the course of the June 27 motion call, but it plans to
address matters more formally when Wallis files his response that by this Court anticipates
ordering. In the latter respect, on June 27 Wallis expressed concern as to his possible inability to
1
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."
2
Those same principles would apply to a removal pursuant to Section 2679(b)(2) if the
targeted federal individuals were to have taken separate steps under that statute to initiate or to
join in the removal (though this Court does not view any such steps are necessary in the posture
of this case).
-3-
respond because he is among the restricted filers designated by orders of this District Court's
Executive Committee.
But this Court has obtained and read a copy of the November 9, 2012 Executive
Committee Order that gave rise to Wallis' concern. Unsurprisingly Wallis is again mistaken -that Order simply enjoins him "from filing any new civil action or proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois without first obtaining leave" in the
manner described there. Nothing in that Order limits his ability to respond to the matters raised
by the United States' Notice. 3
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 30, 2014
3
Relatedly this Court has also reviewed the 200+ page Petition for Writ of Certiorari
(that page count includes all of the bulky exhibits to his Petition) that Wallis provided to this
Court at the conclusion of the June 27 hearing, in which he has raised -- in another case -- the
validity of certain constraints imposed on his court filings. Again unsurprisingly, that certiorari
petition and that other case have nothing at all to do with this case.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?