Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Baker et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Report and Recommendations, Order,, 7 Motion to Remand to State Court filed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC. This case is REMANDED to the 211th Judicial District Court for Denton County, Texas for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 12/15/15. (cm, )

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A
CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY,

§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-00455
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT E. BAKER, MARY JILL
BAKER, and ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS
OF 3935 SPINNAKER RUN POINT
LITTLE ELM, TX 75068,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER REMANDING CASE
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 September 18, 2015, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 7) be GRANTED
and that this case be remanded to the 211th Judicial District Court for Denton County, Texas for
further proceedings.
On October 13, 2015, pro se Defendant Mary Jill Baker filed her objections to the report (see
Dkt. # 12). Plaintiff responded to those objections on October 19, 2015 (see Dkt. # 13).
The Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Defendant, as well as
Plaintiff’s response to those objections, and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
1

Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the
Magistrate Judge.
There is no removal jurisdiction here. A case removed on diversity may only be removed
“if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State
in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Pro se Defendant Mary Jill Baker concedes
in her objections that she is a citizen of Texas. She is thus precluded from removal based on
diversity of citizenship.
Further, nothing in Defendant’s objections shows how the court would have federal question
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. The underlying application under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
736 is a narrow procedural mechanism, in which the only issue is whether a party may obtain an
order to proceed with foreclosure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 735 &736. It does not arise under federal law.
See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Gladle, 2015 WL 1543194 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
The court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings
and conclusions of this court. There was no subject matter jurisdiction upon which to base removal,
and remand is appropriate.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 7) is GRANTED and this case is
REMANDED to the 211th Judicial District Court for Denton County, Texas for further proceedings.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15 day of December, 2015.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2