`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`§§
`
`§§§
`
`§
`§
`
`AMH ROMAN TWO TX, LLC,
`
`Relator
`
`RICHARD HOWARD, IV
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 4:15cv817
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Pending before the Court is AMH Roman Two Tx, LLC’s First Amended Motion to Remand
`
`Proceeding (Dkt. 4). As set forth below, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED and
`
`the case should be remanded.
`
`AMH is the Plaintiff in a separate Justice of the Peace Court forcible detainer action whereby
`
`it seeks possession of real property in McKinney, Texas. Respondent, the Honorable Mike
`
`Yarborough, is the Judge presiding over AMH’s Justice of the Peace Court forcible detainer action.
`
`Richard Howard is the foreclosed-upon mortgagor and answering Defendant in the Justice of the
`
`Peace Court forcible detainer action. According to AMH, Howard has continued to occupy the
`
`Subject Property as a tenant at sufferance following sale to AMH.
`
`After Howard removed the forcible detainer action to this Court and it was remanded (see
`
`4:15cv273), AMH filed this separate mandamus proceeding in the County Court at Law seeking an
`
`order to compel the Justice of the Peace to proceed to trial in the forcible detainer action. Howard
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00817-RC-DDB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 158
`
`then removed the mandamus proceeding to this Court.1
`
`Howard cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(b) and 1146 as grounds for removal. See Dkt. 1.
`
`The parties to the underlying action, as listed by Howard in his notice of removal, are AMH Roman
`
`Two Tx, LLC Realtor (sic) as Plaintiff; Richard Howard as Defendant; and Judge Mike Yarborough
`
`as Defendant. Howard argues that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over his claims because it is
`
`a civil action between citizens of different states and because the subject real property has a current
`
`fair market value of $452,500. Howard also argues that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
`
`certain state law claims.
`
`AMH, the Relator in this underlying mandamus action seeks remand, arguing the Court lacks
`
`removal jurisdiction. The Court agrees.
`
`STANDARD
`
`A court is required to strictly construe the removal statute in favor of remand and against
`
`removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447; In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007). Federal district
`
`courts are of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases authorized by a federal statute, the
`
`Constitution, or U.S. treaty. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct.
`
`1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed.2d 391 (1994); Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
`
`When there is no subject-matter jurisdiction, remand is mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
`
`1In addition to 4:15cv273, which was remanded, some of the parties are also involved in
`4:15cv526 also pending before the undersigned. The Court will address any dispositive issues in
`that suit separately.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00817-RC-DDB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 159
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Howard’s removal fails for various reasons, and remand is mandatory here. First, the
`
`removal is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and the “forum defendant rule.” Section 1441(b) states,
`
`in part, that 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). Howard has listed a McKinney, Texas address as his address and states in his
`
`civil cover sheet that is a Texas resident. See Dkt. 1 at 2, 5 and Dkt. 1-1. That AMH Roman Two
`
`TX, LLC may be a non-Texas citizen is of no import. Howard is a Texas citizen and thus cannot
`
`remove over AMH’s timely objection.
`
`Further, Howard has not shown that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and it is his
`
`burden to make such a showing. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas, Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th
`
`Cir. 2003). Even if the Court were to base the amount in controversy in this mandamus action on
`
`the amount in controversy in the related forcible detainer action — which Howard has not shown
`
`any authority to show the Court should — a forcible detainer action only seeks possession of
`
`property. The amount in controversy is not the fair market value of the property but instead is
`
`general is reasonable rental value. Dews v. Floyd, 413 S.W.2d 800, 805, 413 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. Civ.
`
`App. 1967, writ dism’d); see also Hart v. Keller Props., 567 S.W.2d 888, 889, 567 S.W.2d 888
`
`(Tex. Civ. App. 1978) (“The rule is settled that the measure of the lessor’s damages for withholding
`
`possession pending appeal of the forcible detainer action is the reasonable rental value.”).
`
`Moreover, Defendant has not shown how this Court would otherwise have federal question
`
`jurisdiction over the underlying petition for writ of mandamus. Removal was improper, and the case
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00817-RC-DDB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 160
`
`must be remanded.
`
`Howard has the burden of proof in demonstrating that removal to federal court is proper.
`
`Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2007). He has not done so, and
`
`given the record here, cannot do so. It is, therefore, recommended that this case be remanded to the
`
`County Court at Law Number 3, Collin County for further proceedings.
`
`The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s request for an award of fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),
`
`“[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including
`
`attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The standard for awarding
`
`attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) should be determined on “the reasonableness of the removal.”
`
`Martin v. Franklin Capitol Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136-141 (2005). Id. at 141 (citing Hornbuckle v.
`
`State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 2004); Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d
`
`290, 293 (5th Cir. 2000)). When determining whether a court should award attorney’s fees and costs
`
`after a motion to remand is granted, “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s
`
`fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
`
`seeking removal.” Id.
`
`The Court finds that there was no objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal in this
`
`case. As the Court has already noted, on July 6, 2015, a different judge of this District remanded the
`
`forcible detainer action removed by Howard. See 4:15cv273. In the order remanding that case —
`
`setting forth many of the grounds for remand here — the Court ordered that “any defendant,
`
`including Richard Howard IV, claiming an interest in the property located at 7004 Westchester
`
`Court, McKinney, Texas, 75070 is forbidden from filing a Notice of Removal of any state court
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00817-RC-DDB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 161
`
`eviction action to any federal civil district court without prior written approval from this Court.”
`
`Dkt. 10 in 4:15cv273. Although Howard did not remove the eviction action, he was well advised
`
`of the Court’s removal jurisdiction.
`
`AMH should be awarded costs and expenses in the amount of $875.00 against Richard
`
`Howard IV, for which let execution issue. To the extent AMH asks the undersigned to conduct a
`
`show-cause contempt hearing in this matter for violation of the Court’s order in 4:15cv273 (see Dkt.
`
`7), the Court declines to conduct such a hearing in this matter. The Court finds that an award of fees
`
`is sufficient deterrent as to the removal of this mandamus proceeding. Howard is cautioned however
`
`that future removals of any matters relating to the forcible detainer actions may warrant much
`
`harsher sanctions.
`
`RECOMMENDATION
`
`AMH Roman Two Tx, LLC’s First Amended Motion to Remand Proceeding (Dkt. 4) should
`
`be GRANTED, this action should be remanded to Collin County Court at Law #3, and AMH should
`
`be awarded costs and expenses in the amount of $875.00 against Richard Howard IV, for which let
`
`execution issue.
`
`Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve
`
`and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28
`
`U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C).
`
`A party is entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the findings and conclusions
`
`contained in this report only if specific objections are made, and failure to timely file written
`
`objections to any proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00817-RC-DDB Document 8 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 162
`
`bar an aggrieved party from appellate review of those factual findings and legal conclusions accepted
`
`by the district court, except on grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with
`
`notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
`
`148 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
`
`superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections
`
`from ten to fourteen days).
`
`6