Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Moman

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this case is remanded to the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas based on Defendant's failure to show good cause why this case was not timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 10/19/17. Mailed to pro se party Timothy I. Moman by regular and certified mail. (Certified Tracking Number: 7015 0920 0001 7045 8850)(kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-2405-JAR-TJJ

TIMOTHY I. MOMAN,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Timothy I. Moman removed this action from the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas, on July 21, 2017, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc.
1). In his notice of removal, Defendant stated that he “received notice of the Complaint on
March 31, 2017, via the court clerk. Service has been effectuated by the court on February 7,
2017.”1 On July 27, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James issued an order
granting Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and directing Defendant to show
cause why this case should not be remanded to the District Court of Johnson County because
Defendant filed his notice of removal more than 30 days after Defendant received a copy of
Plaintiff’s initial pleading. As Judge James explained, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a notice of
removal must be filed “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or
otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading.”
Defendant responded to the show cause order on August 15, 2017, stating that he filed
the notice of removal beyond the 30-day deadline set forth in § 1446(b)(1) because, as a pro se

1

Doc. 1 at 2.

party, he was “still learning the rules of Federal Civil Procedure.”2 “Although ‘[a] pro se
litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,’ ‘[t]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.’”3 The Court is not convinced that
Defendant’s status as a pro se party and resulting unfamiliarity with procedural rules in itself
amounts to the same level of good cause that courts have found in cases where untimely removal
has been excused.4 Accordingly, the Court remands this case to the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas based on Defendant’s failure to show good cause for his untimely removal of
this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this case is remanded to the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas based on Defendant’s failure to show good cause
why this case was not timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Doc. 8 at 2.

3

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

4

See, e.g., Grover v. Comdial Corp., 275 F. Supp. 2d 750 (W.D. Va. 2003) (court accepting removal
petition as timely filed based on defendant’s good faith attempt to file within prescribed time frame, where
defendant attempted to file prior to 30-day deadline but was prevented from doing so by courthouse being closed
due to weather).

2