Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Contreras et al

Filing 29

ORDER Overruling 27 Defendants' OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge; Magistrate Judge Boylans August 29, 2013 Order 25 is ADOPTED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 10/01/2013. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 13-897 ADM/AJB

Angelberto Contreras, Mayra Rodriguez,
John Doe, and Mary Roe,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Wendy Oien Sanchez, Esq., and Kalli L. Ostlie, Esq., Shapiro & Zielke, LLP, Burnsville, MN,
on behalf of Plaintiff.
William B. Butler, Esq., Butler Liberty Law, LLC, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on
Defendants’ Objection [Docket No. 27] to Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan’s August 29, 2013,
Order [Docket No. 25]. In an administrative order, Chief Judge Michael Davis assigned all
dispositive and non-dispositive matters in this action to Judge Boylan for expedited
consideration [Docket No. 15]. Thereafter, Judge Boylan remanded this action to state court.
Judge Boylan found the underlying subject matter of the action—a post-foreclosure
eviction—was properly brought in state court and that this Court should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction.
The Court has reviewed Judge Boylan’s order de novo, and finds the order to be wellfounded. Although abstention is “the exception, not the rule,” eviction is fundamentally a state
law concern. MCC Mortg. LP v. Office Depot, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 2d 939, 946-47 (D. Minn.
2010) (citations omitted). In this case, the Court agrees with Judge Boylan that the removal of
this case to federal court appears to be a delay tactic, and that the underlying matter is most

properly and efficiently resolved by the state court. In addition, Defendants’ concern regarding
piecemeal litigation is belied by the history of the case. Due to its unique procedural posture,
both this action and Defendants’ separate lawsuit were assigned to Judge Boylan. See Contreras
v. Fed. Home Loan Morg. Corp., No. 13-cv-894 (D. Minn.). Judge Boylan undoubtedly issued
the remand order as part of a larger effort to coordinate litigation between the parties, and
Defendants’ separate lawsuit will proceed accordingly. As a result, Defendants’ objection is
overruled and the order remanding this action is adopted.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Objection [Docket No. 27] is OVERRULED; and

2.

Judge Boylan’s August 29, 2013 Order [Docket No. 25] is ADOPTED.

BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 1, 2013.

2