Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Xiong et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Defendants' objections (Doc. No. 14 ) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's January 3, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's January 3, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 13 ) is ADOPTED. 3. This action is REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota. 4 The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/8/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,

Civil No. 13-1333 (DWF/JJK)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Fong Xiong, Maria Her Xiong, John Doe,
and Mary Roe,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ objections (Doc. No. 14) to
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s January 3, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 13) insofar as it recommends that this action be remanded to Minnesota state district
court. Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ objections on January 24, 2014. (Doc.
No. 16.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Defendants’ objections. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court
concludes that Defendants’ objections offer no basis for departure from the Report and
Recommendation.
Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that, even assuming
subject matter jurisdiction here, the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this

case and remand the matter to state court. (See generally Doc. No. 14.) Specifically,
Defendants argue that where a statute (in this case 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f)) confers federal
question jurisdiction, a federal district court may never abstain from the exercise of such
jurisdiction. 1 (See id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff, meanwhile, contends that remand is proper.
(Doc. No. 16.) The undersigned ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
determination that this eviction action is best handled by the appropriate state district
court.
The Court, however, must first consider sua sponte and resolve the issue of
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Clark v. Baka, 593
F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2010); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Briggs, -- Fed. Appx. --,
2014 WL 750256, at *1 n.2 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that “a court may not assume
hypothetical jurisdiction to decide contested questions of law when its jurisdiction is in
doubt”). In light of the relevant considerations, the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction here. 2 See Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Xiong, Civ. No. 13-2906, 2014 WL

1

Similar arguments have been considered and repeatedly rejected by courts in this
district. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Gear-Fleury, Civ. No. 13-2389, 2014 WL
468202, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2014); Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Torborg, Civ.
No. 13-1522, 2013 WL 5567450 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2013); Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v.
Guevara, Civ. No. 13-3603, 2014 WL 300985 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2014); Fed. Nat’l
Mortg. Ass’n v. Bullock, Civ. No. 13-1202, 2014 WL 223445 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2014);
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Ass’n v. Ville, Civ. No. 13-2136, 2014 WL 300948 (D. Minn.
Jan. 28, 2014); Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Diaz, Civ. No. 13-1473, 2014 WL 127113 (D.
Minn. Jan. 14, 2014). The Court rejects Defendants’ argument once again here.
2

Because the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
but abstains from exercising jurisdiction, the Court orders that judgment be entered. See
Jacks v. Meridian Res. Co., LLC, 701 F.3d 1224, 1229 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that 28
(Footnote Continued on Next Page)
2

988464, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2014) (concluding that the federal district court had
subject matter jurisdiction in a similar case). Nevertheless, the Court further concludes,
as did Magistrate Judge Keyes, that abstention and remand are appropriate.
Consequently, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections and remands this matter to
state district court.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and
submissions of the parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises,
the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Defendants’ objections (Doc. No. [14]) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J.

Keyes’s January 3, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s January 3, 2014 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [13]) is ADOPTED.
3.

This action is REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of

Minnesota.
4

The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of

the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota.

(Footnote Continued From Previous Page)
U.S.C. § 1447(d) “only bars appellate review of a district court’s remand order that is
based on a ground specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),” which means that, while “remand
orders based on a procedural defect or lack of subject matter jurisdiction are
unreviewable . . . , [a] remand order that is based on some other, non-section 1447(c)
ground is a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291”).
3

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 8, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

4