United States District Court, D. Minnesota
MENDEZ, CARLSON & ASSOCIATES, LTD., FOR PLAINTIFF
GREEN, PRO SE DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. SCHULTZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Chamberlain Home
Owners Association's (Chamberlain) Motion to Remand to
State Court and for an award of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Docket No. 4. A hearing was held on October
1, 2019, at which Defendant Carl Green failed to appear. For
the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that
Chamberlain's motion be granted, this case be remanded to
state court, and that Chamberlain be awarded fees and costs.
filed an Eviction Action Complaint in Washington County
District Court on June 19, 2019. Complaint, Docket No. 1-1.
Chamberlain emailed a copy of the Summons and Complaint to
Green on June 24, 2019, and Green acknowledged receipt.
Mendez Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 9. The action was heard on
July 3, 2019, and the state district court issued a final
order of judgment in Chamberlain's favor, finding that
Green defaulted on the mortgage and the property was sold at
a Sheriff's sale. Id. ¶ 3 and Ex. A, Docket
Nos. 9, 9-1. Green failed to appear in court. Id.
Ex. A, Docket No. 9-1.
appealed the order on July 9, 2019. Id. ¶¶
5-6, Docket No. 9. Green also requested a stay of the
execution of the writ, and a hearing was set for and took
place on August 5, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. Green
failed to appear at the state district court hearing.
Id. ¶ 9.
31, 2019 Green removed this case to federal court alleging
federal question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal ¶¶
2-3, Docket No. 1. Specifically, Green alleged that “a
federal question appears on the face of the initial pleading
filed” and that the “lawsuit is a Civil Action
within the meaning of the Acts of Congress relating to
removal of causes” and “[t]herefore, federal
question jurisdiction exists . . . because the resolution of
Defendant's claim will require adjudication of disputed
questions of federal law.” Id. On August 5,
2019 Green filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
(TRO). Docket No. 2.
August 6, Chamberlain moved to remand the case to state
court, asserting that the removal was untimely and that its
state court eviction complaint does not state any federal
question. Motion, Docket No. 4; Pl. Br. 3, Docket No. 8. On
August 7, 2019 Chamberlain filed a Notice of Hearing stating
that the remand motion would be heard on October 1, 2019 at
10:00 a.m. Amended Notice of Hearing, Docket No. 7.
Chamberlain was unable to meet and confer with Green about
the remand motion, as Green instructed Chamberlain's
counsel not to contact him by email or phone. Meet-and-Confer
Statement, Docket No. 11. Chamberlain sent Green a letter by
U.S. mail on August 5, 2019 regarding the motion.
about August 7, 2019, Chambers staff spoke with Green by
telephone and advised him that the Court could not rule on
his TRO motion until the threshold issue of the Court's
subject matter jurisdiction over this case is resolved. Green
was unwilling to waive the 42-day notice on the remand
motion, which would have allowed an earlier hearing date.
Rather, Green stated that he would file his TRO motion in
another federal lawsuit he has pending in federal court in
the District of Minnesota.
August 15, 2019 Chamberlain filed a memorandum of law
opposing Green's TRO motion. Docket No. 12.
August 19, 2019 Green filed two responses to
Chamberlain's remand motion, but they did not address
Chamberlain's legal arguments regarding the lack of a
federal question in the complaint that was removed.
See Docket Nos. 20-21. Rather, Green simply asserted
in a conclusory way that Chamberlain's lawsuit violates
his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and various Civil
Rights statutes, and that there is a “federal
ingredient” in this case that authorizes jurisdiction.
Docket No. 20 at 1, 3; Docket No. 21 at 1-2. Most of
Green's response consists of arguments and complaints
regarding the state court eviction proceedings and
participants, the same proceedings for which he failed to
appear, along with copies of Green's filings in state
court and in another federal lawsuit, District of Minnesota
No. 19-cv-1666. See Docket No. 20.
same day, August 19, 2019, Green filed a second TRO motion,
along with a memorandum of law and affidavit in support
[Docket Nos. 15-19], despite the Court's previous
instructions that Chamberlain's remand motion must be
resolved first, to determine the threshold question of
whether the Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit. Green
continued to file documents related to his TRO motions. His
Opposition to Remand asserted that his TRO motion was
“set to be heard before this court on October 1, 2019
at 10:00 a.m. the same time as Plaintiff's motion to
remand.” Docket No. 21 at 1. Green also filed a notice
that stated his TRO motion would be heard “on October
1, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.” Docket No. 15.
August 23, 2019 Chamberlain filed a reply to Green's
opposition to ...