Goess-Saurau v. Faller et al

Filing 30

ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 8/13/2013. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal, without prejudice, of the claims asserted on behalf of the Trust. Instead, the Court finds that remand is the appropriate action. This action is hereby remanded to the Russell Circuit Court re 6 . All other pending motions are moot. The Court finds that removal of this action was not justified and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs. Counsel seeks $1000 as a reasonable fee, however, counsel is directed to file an affidavit in support of his request within 10 days of the date of entry of this order, itemizing his time and expenses in litigating this motion to remand. cc: Counsel, James Faller, pro se; pro se parties; Russell Circuit Court (CDR) Modified distribution on 8/14/2013 (CDR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-00048-JHM
KONRAD GOESS-SAURAN

PLAINTIFF

V.
JAMES S. FALLER, II, TRUSTEE OF
THE TANYA FALLER IRREVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the recommendation of the Magistrate to dismiss the
claims made on behalf of the Tanya Faller Irrevocable Trust because those claims are being asserted
here by James S. Faller, II, who is not licensed to practice law, and on a Motion to Remand filed by
the Plaintiff, which is ripe for decision. [DN 6].
James S Faller, II, acting pro se, filed what he called a “Verified Civil Rights Complaint &
Removal” which caused the removal of a state court action in which he was not a party. The Tanya
Faller Irrevocable Trust is the Defendant below and James S. Faller, II, is the Trustee. The Trust
was represented by counsel below. The Magistrate Judge correctly concludes that Mr. Faller, acting
pro se, cannot represent the interests of the Trust in this removal action. The Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissal, without prejudice, of the claims asserted on behalf of the Trust. Instead, the
Court finds that remand is the appropriate action.
As argued by the Plaintiff, in its motion to remand, the underlying action was immediately
removable when filed and thus, the Notice of Removal was not timely filed. Therefore, this action
is hereby remanded to the Russell Circuit Court. All other pending motions are moot.
The Court finds that removal of this action was not justified and that Plaintiff is entitled to

recover its costs. Counsel seeks $1000 as a reasonable fee, however, counsel is directed to file an
affidavit in support of his request within 10 days of the date of entry of this order, itemizing his
time and expenses in litigating this motion to remand.
So ordered.

August 13, 2013

cc: counsel of record

2