Federal National Mortgage Association v. Goza

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 9 Report and Recommendations, 7 Motion to Remand, filed by Federal National Mortgage Association. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is GRANTED and the case is remanded to County Court at Law No. 3 in Collin County, Texas, immediately. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 6/24/13. (cm, )

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE,
Plaintiff,
V.
VIRGINIA A. GOZA,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-108
Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. On April 24, 2013, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. #7] be granted [Doc.
#9]. On May 8, 2013,

filed objections to the report [Doc. #10].

The Magistrate Judge found that defendant’s removal of this case was improper under the
forum defendant rule. Defendant’s objections do not address this issue. Instead, defendant merely
asserts that the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy has been met. Even if this is true,
removal was not proper by a Texas defendant, and because a timely motion to remand was filed, the
court must remand the case.
Defendant also raises, for the first time, that removal was proper under federal question
jurisdiction because plaintiff’s petition alleges a claim under the laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C.

1

§ 1681. Although this argument is not properly before the court, even if considered by the court, the
argument has no merit. There is no federal claim asserted by plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a postforeclosure eviction proceeding and asserts no federal claims. Defendant also asserts, for the first
time, that the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case. The question was
whether this case was properly removed, and there was no basis for removal. Thus, the court cannot
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s case because the case was not properly
removed.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and considering the
objections thereto filed by

, this court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of

the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and
conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff did not support its claim for attorney's fees. They are denied.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. #7] is GRANTED and
the case is remanded to County Court at Law No. 3 in Collin County, Texas, immediately.
All motions by either party not previously ruled on are DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this civil action.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24 day of June, 2013.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2