Mussman v. D.A. Dodd Inc. et al
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants 7 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Defendant HSBC Mortgages and REMANDS this case to the LaPorte County Circuit Court for all further proceedings. the Court also denies as moot 5 MOTION to Dismiss and Respons e by Defendant D.A. Dodd Inc. Finally, the Court will award reasonable expenses and costs to HSBC which it incurred as a result of the removal. The Court grants HSBC 14 days from the entry of this order to establish expenses and costs it has incurred. Signed by Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 12/7/2022. (Copy mailed to pro se party, Certified copy to Clerk, LaPorte County Circuit Court)(ash)
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00936-JD-MGG document 13 filed 12/07/22 page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RHYS MUSSMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:22-CV-936 JD
D.A. DODD INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 6, 2022, Rhys Mussman filed a notice of removal of Laporte County Circuit
Court, Cause No. 46C01-0707-PL-000258. Defendant D.A. Dodd, Inc., and Defendant HSBC
Bank USA, National Association as Trustee of Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-14 (“HSBC”), then filed a motion to dismiss
removal and a motion to remand, respectively. (DE 5; DE 7.) These motions argue that remand is
warranted for multiple reasons: (1) failure to include a copy of the complaint in the removal
notice; (2) untimely removal; and (3) failure to properly allege diversity jurisdiction. In its
motion, HSBC also asks the Court to grant leave to HSBC to file a statement of fees in its
remand order so that the Court may assess costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, for
Mussman’s wrongful removal. 1
The Court finds that Mussman’s removal is frivolous. First, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, a
notice of removal must have “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such
1
In response to these motions, Mussman filed briefs entitled “Just Cause for Objecting to a Bar Attorney” (DE 10),
“Objection to any Removal by Artificial Entities” (DE 11), and “Memorandum of Facts and Conclusion in Law”
(DE 12). The Court notes that Mussman’s arguments in these briefs are unclear and do not address the arguments
raised by HSBC and D.A. Dodd, Inc. It appears he is arguing that these parties are corporations and, therefore,
cannot represent themselves in this action. However, HSBC and D.A. Dodd are represented by counsel.
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00936-JD-MGG document 13 filed 12/07/22 page 2 of 4
defendant or defendants in such action.” Mussman fails to include a copy of any process,
pleadings, or orders from the underlying state action. (DE 1.) This alone warrants remand.
Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 998 (7th Cir. 2011) (“A defect in the removal procedure
normally requires remanding a case that has been removed under section 1446(a).”); See PorchClark v. Engelhart, 930 F. Supp. 2d 928, 933–34 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (“[T]he failure to attach such
documents is not jurisdictional and will not result in remand as long as sufficient documents are
attached to show the basis for jurisdiction.”).
Nor can Mussman’s failure to include a copy of the state court process, pleadings, and
orders be attributed to some inconsequential oversight. The Seventh Circuit has stated that “a
totally inconsequential defect in removal papers” does not “deprive the district court of
jurisdiction[.]” Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 998 (7th Cir. 2011). This is not such a case.
Instead, Mussman’s failure to include a copy of the Complaint and summons is consequential as
Mussman was served the Complaint in this case on July 23, 2007. Id. (“[Y]et defects in the
notice that are inconsequential in the sense of incapable of misleading or otherwise harming
anyone do not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction.”); (DE 5-1).
Mussman’s notice of removal is clearly untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), “the notice
of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim
for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of
summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not
required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” Here, D.A. Dodd, Inc., filed
the public state court docket from the removed case, which reveals that Mussman was served on
2
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00936-JD-MGG document 13 filed 12/07/22 page 3 of 4
July 23, 2007. (DE 5-1 at 5.) Not only is this removal more than fifteen years too late, but trial
has already been held and final judgment entered. (DE 5-1 at 41.)
In addition to this removal being untimely, Mussman fails to properly allege diversity
jurisdiction. Mussman’s removal notice, which asserts diversity jurisdiction, fails to allege any
parties’ citizenship. (DE 1.) The Seventh Circuit has been clear that “a complaint may not merely
allege diversity of citizenship without identifying the defendants’ states of citizenship[.]” Dalton
v. Teva N. Am., 891 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2018). Additionally, “no case may be removed on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction more than one year after commencement of the action . . . .”
Campbell v. Bayou Steel Corp., 338 F. Supp. 2d 896, 900 (N.D. Ill. 2004). The state court action
was commenced in 2007. (DE 5-1 at 5.) Accordingly, in addition to failing to include copies of
the pleadings from the removed case, and filing his removal more than fifteen years too late,
Mussman has also failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction and failed to remove this action
within one year of its commencement.
Due to the errors identified above, remand is warranted. Furthermore, while a Court
“should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires,” the Court declines to
do so in this instance. Rule 15(a)(2). “District courts have broad discretion to deny leave to
amend where there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, undue prejudice to the defendants, or where the amendment would be futile.” Hukic
v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009). Amendment here would be futile
because Mussman was required to file his removal notice more than fifteen years ago.
Finally, the Court addresses the issue of attorneys’ fees, which HSBC raised in its motion
to remand. An order remanding a removed case “may require payment of just costs and any
actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. §
3
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00936-JD-MGG document 13 filed 12/07/22 page 4 of 4
1447(c). Such an award is warranted here because Mussman’s removal of this state action was
objectively unreasonable. The Seventh Circuit has upheld awarding costs and expenses where
the removal was objectively unreasonable. PNC Bank, N.A. v. Spencer, 763 F.3d 650, 654 (7th
Cir. 2014). Filing a notice of removal more than fifteen years after a state court action was filed
and service issued makes this unreasonable. That a trial has already been held and that final
judgment has already occurred underscores the unreasonableness of this removal. Attorneys’ fees
in such a circumstance are justified.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to remand (DE 7) and REMANDS this case to
the LaPorte County Circuit Court for all further proceedings. The Court also denies as moot the
motion to dismiss. (DE 5.) Finally, the Court will award reasonable expenses and costs to HSBC
which it incurred as a result of the removal. The Court grants HSBC 14 days from the entry of
this order to establish the expenses and costs it has incurred.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 7, 2022
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?