United States District Court, D. Minnesota
PHH Mortgage Corporation, Federal National Mortgage Association Plaintiffs,
Kimberly A. Lawrence, John Doe, and Mary Roe Defendants.
Ostlie, for Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association.
Kimberly A. Lawrence, pro se.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
FRANKLIN L. NOEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER came before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage
Association's (“Fannie Mae”) motion to remand
to state court (ECF No. 10), and Defendant Kimberly A.
Lawrence's (“Defendant”) application to
proceed without prepaying fees or costs (ECF No. 2), motion
for court appointed counsel (ECF No. 3), and motion to amend
notice of removal (ECF No. 5). The parties dispositive
motions are referred to the undersigned for Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local
Rule 72.1. See Order, ECF No. 16. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court recommends that Fannie Mae's
motion for remand (ECF No. 10) be GRANTED.
Defendant's motion to amend her notice of removal (ECF
No. 5) is GRANTED, and her application to
proceed without paying fees or costs (ECF No. 2), and motion
for court appointed counsel are DENIED as
4, 2014, Fannie Mae filed an Amended Complaint in Hennepin
County, District Court, seeking to evict Defendant from the
property located at 1661 Eagle Ln, Mound, MN. See
ECF No. 13, Ex. 1. According to the Amended Complaint, the
mortgage on the property was foreclosed upon and sold to PHH
Mortgage Corporation on October 7, 2011. Id. The
property was then transferred to Fannie Mae on December 22,
2011, by a limited warranty deed. Id. On May 8,
2012, a demand for possession of the property was sent to
Defendant. Id. On November 19, 2012, Fannie Mae
brought a motion for summary judgment which was stayed until
June 11, 2013. Id. at Ex. 5. On July 30, 2013, the
court granted Fannie Mae's motion for summary judgment,
and found that Fannie Mae was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Id. In doing so, the court found that
Defendant had not disputed the existence of the mortgage, the
sheriff sale, the expiration of the redemption period without
redemption, or that she continued to occupy the property.
Id. The court entered judgment in favor of Fannie
Mae for recovery of the property, and an order to vacate was
issued on August 6, 2013. Id. at Ex. 4. While the
writ of recovery was executed on September 3, 2013, the
Defendant had access to the property until December 9, 2013.
Id. at Ex. 6.
October 3, 2017, Defendant filed a motion seeking damages for
personal property left at the residence. Id. On
November 27, 2017, the court denied Plaintiff's motion.
thereafter, on December 8, 2017, Defendant filed a notice to
remove the matter to the District of Minnesota. See
ECF No. 4. Defendant also filed an application to proceed in
district court without prepaying fees and costs, and a motion
for appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos. 2, 3. On
December 11, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to amend the
notice of removal. ECF No. 5. Fannie Mae has not responded to
Defendant's request or motions, and the time to do so has
January 8, 2018, Fannie Mae filed a motion to remand the
matter to state court. ECF No. 10. Fannie Mae argues that
Defendant's notice of removal is untimely and therefore
procedurally defective. ECF No. 12.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Defendant's Motion to Amend Notice of Removal
(ECF No. 5)
initial matter, noting that Fannie Mae has not objected to
Defendant's motion to amend her notice of removal, this
Court grants Defendant's motion to amend.
Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (ECF No.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a party may remove “any
civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction . . .
to the district court ...