SRMOF REO 2011-1 TRUST v. Johnson

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. [Doc. 4] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 9] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Associate Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri. An appropriate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/18/2013. (KSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SRMOF REO 2011-1 TRUST,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
LYLE D. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:13-CV-792 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to remand to the Associate Circuit Court
of St. Charles County, Missouri. Upon review of the state court documents, it is apparent that this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. As a result, the Court will remand this action
back to the Court from which it was removed.
Background
On August 30, 2012, plaintiff, a Trust, filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant
Lyle Johnson in the Associate Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri in Case No. 1211AC06232. See Petition in Unlawful Detainer, attached to Defendant’s Notice of Removal.1 In the
state court action, the Trust was seeking to obtain possession of a house occupied by Mr. Johnson
that it had bought in a foreclosure sale. Mr. Johnson entered his appearance on his own behalf in
the unlawful detainer action on September 24, 2012, and he filed a motion to dismiss the action.2

1

The real property at issue concerns “Lot 110 of the Manors at Orchard Glen, as Per Plat
Thereof recorded in Plat Book 42 Page 40 of the St. Charles County Records.” This property is also
known as: 171 Berry Manor Circle, St. Peters, Missouri 63376.
2

Nearly six months after entering his appearance, Mr. Johnson filed a notice of removal in
the unlawful detainer action, on or about April 22, 2013. Clearly he failed to comply with the
time limits set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) requiring a litigant to file a notice of removal within

From Court filings attached to plaintiff’s motion to remand, it is apparent that judgment was
entered in favor of plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action on March 19, 2013, approximately one
month prior to removal of the case to this Court. Although it appears that plaintiff has attempted
to reverse the state court judgment by filing various post-trial motions3, going so far as to attack the
judgment through collateral bankruptcy proceedings, the state court judgment in favor of the Trust
remains proper and enforceable.
At the culmination of the unlawful detainer action, the Trust was awarded possession of the
real property at issue, as well as rent at the rate of $4000 per month, commencing August 12, 2012,
until such time as the Trust obtains possession of the premises. The Trust filed its writ of execution
seeking to secure possession on April 26, 2013.
Discussion
Defendant, Lyle Johnson, now seeks to remove the unlawful detainer action to this Court.
In his notice of removal, defendant claims that the Trust is “not the true and beneficial party of
interest [and] therefore lacks standing to bring [an] unlawful detainer action.” He additionally
claims, in a conclusory manner, that “the complaint presents federal questions.”

thirty (30) days of “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.”
3

Mr. Johnson has filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied by the state
court on May 7, 2013, in addition to filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, which was
dismissed by the Honorable Kathy A. Surratt-States on April 24, 2013. See In the Matter of Lyle
D. Johnson, Case No. 13-42278-659 (Bankr. E.D. Mo.).
-2-

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), an action is removable from state court to federal court only
where the federal court has “original jurisdiction.”4 The Court notes that defendant has failed to
specifically state the jurisdictional grounds for removing this action to federal court. Mr. Johnson
does not set forth any laws or constitutionally-protected rights that this case allegedly involves.5 See
28 U.S.C. § 1331. And the Court notes that an unlawful detainer action is a limited action, brought
pursuant to a Missouri statute, whereby the sole issue to be decided is the immediate right of
possession to a parcel of real property. See, e.g., U.S. Bank NA v. Watson, 388 S.W.3d 233, 235
(Mo. Ct. App. 2012); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 543.200. Thus, by itself, an unlawful detainer action does not
involve any federal or constitutional issues.
Moreover, there is no indication that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
given that defendant has failed to so plead, and the amount in controversy does not appear to exceed
$75,000.6 As such, the case must be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

4

Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction; they lack subject matter jurisdiction
to engage in appellate review of state court decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d
160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). “Review of state court decisions may be had only in the Supreme Court.”
Id.
5

Mr. Johnson does, indeed, reference a separate action in his notice of removal, also filed in
St. Charles County, where he is in fact the plaintiff. See Case No. 1211-CC00740. As Mr. Johnson
is aware, since he is the master of his own complaint, he may choose where to file an original action
(whether in federal or state court), but as a plaintiff in the action, he cannot remove it to federal court
once he has chosen to file it in state court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), only a defendant or
defendants may remove a state court action to the district court of the United States for the district
and division embracing the place where such an action is pending. (emphasis added)
6

The Trust has indicated in its motion to remand that judgment was entered in favor of the
Trust in an amount of $4,000 per month, beginning on the date of the foreclosure sale, August 14,
2012, until the Trust actually takes possession of the property. The Trust has already moved for a
writ of execution. As such, it does it does not appear that the amount in controversy will grow to
exceed $75,000. At any rate, Mr. Johnson has not so pled.
-3-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED. [Doc. 4]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 9]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Associate Circuit
Court of St. Charles County, Missouri.
An appropriate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

18th

day of June, 2013.

-4-