Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00121/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for this 

Asset Securitization Corporation Trust 2006-NC1, 

In Rem 103 Rocky Valley Drive, Maumelle, Arkansas, 

NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

HERB MILLER, Chief Executive Officer 

of New Century Mortgage, individually PLAINTIFFS

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-00121-KGB

DRUSSELLA JOHNSON and

JERRY JOHNSON DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Company, solely in its capacity as Trustee for HSI Asset Securitization Corporation Trust 2006-

NC1, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2006-NC1, by and through its servicer, PHH 

Mortgage Corporation d/b/a PHH Mortgage Services, successor by merger to Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC (“Deutsche Bank”) (Dkt. No. 8). Defendants Drussella Johnson and Jerry Johnson

have not responded to this motion, and the time to file a response has passed. Also before the 

Court is the Johnsons’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; Deutsche Bank’s notice of 

related case; Deutsche Bank’s motion for issuance of filing restrictions; Deutsche Bank’s motion 

to dismiss counterclaim; the Johnsons’ motion to show cause; and the Johnson’s motion and 

affidavit in support of constructive trust and motion to strike (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6, 10, 13, 19, 20). For 

the following reasons, the Court grants Deutsche Bank’s motion to remand, denies the remaining 

motions as moot, and remands this case back to Arkansas state court (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6, 10, 13, 19, 

20).

Case 4:20-cv-00121-KGB Document 28 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 5
2

I. Background

Deutsche Bank initiated this action by filing a complaint in forcible entry and detainer 

against the Johnsons in Pulaski County Circuit Court on September 10, 2019 (Dkt. No. 3). 

Deutsche Bank brought this underlying state court action seeking to evict the Johnsons from real 

property located at 103 Rocky Valley Drive, Maumelle, AR 72113, which Deutsche Bank owns 

as the result of a foreclosure sale on July 3, 2018 (Dkt. No. 9, at 1). The Johnsons submitted a 

notice of removal dated February 4, 2020, and that notice was filed with the Court on February 5, 

2020 (Dkt. No. 2). That same day, Deutsche Bank moved to remand this case to state court (Dkt. 

No. 8). 

Deutsche Bank states that the Johnsons are Arkansas residents and citizens, were 

defendants who were served with process in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, and voluntarily 

appeared in that forum prior to removal (Id., ¶¶ 1-2). Deutsche Bank states the 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b)(2) (“the Forum Defendant Rule”) requires remand of this action (Id., ¶ 3). The Forum 

Defendant Rule provides that “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the 

jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any 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)(2). Alternatively, Deutsche Bank argues that the removal is untimely and 

procedurally improper justifying remand (Dkt. No. 8, ¶ 3). Deutsche Bank maintains that there is 

no reasonable basis in law or fact for removal here, given that the Johnsons are residents and 

citizens of Arkansas, have failed to seek timely removal, and have not complied with the removal 

statute (Id., ¶ 4). As a result, Deutsche Banks asks the Court to remand this case to the Pulaski 

County Circuit Court and to sanction defendants for this filing (Id.). 

Case 4:20-cv-00121-KGB Document 28 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 5
3

II. Legal Standard

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

A defendant may remove a state law claim to federal court only if the action originally could have 

been filed there. In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010). The two 

well-established sources of original jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and traditional 

diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Hurt v. Dow Chemical Co., 963 F.2d 

1142, 1144 (8th Cir. 1992). Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over all civil actions 

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal 

courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states where the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)-(b). 

The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Altimore v. Mount Mercy College, 420 F.3d 763, 768 (8th 

Cir. 2005). Federal courts are required to “‘resolve all doubts about federal jurisdiction in favor 

of remand’ and are strictly to construe legislation permitting removal.” Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds 

Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters 

at Lloyd’s of London, 119 F.3d 619, 625 (8th Cir. 1997)). “For a party to remove a case to federal 

court based on diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be diverse both when the plaintiff initiates 

the action in state court and when the defendant files the notice of removal in federal court.” 

Chavez-Lavagnino v. Motivation Educ. Training, Inc., 714 F.3d 1055, 1056 (8th Cir. 2013). 

“Under the so-called ‘forum defendant rule,’ a non-federal question case ‘shall be 

removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a 

Case 4:20-cv-00121-KGB Document 28 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 5
4

citizen of the State in which such action is brought.’” Horton v. Conklin, 431 F.3d 602, 604 (8th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). The Eighth Circuit has held that “violation of the forumdefendant rule is a jurisdictional defect rather than a mere procedural irregularity capable of being 

waived.” Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 467520, at *2 (8th Cir. Jan. 

29, 2020) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

III. Discussion

Deutsche Bank’s complaint brings state law claims against the Johnsons pursuant to 

Arkansas Code Annotated § 18-60-301, et seq. (Dkt. No. 3, ¶ 1). Deutsche Bank alleges no federal 

cause of action against the Johnsons (Id., ¶¶ 1-6). The Court has reviewed the civil cover sheet 

submitted by the Johnsons with their notice of removal (Dkt. No. 2-1). In “Section I. Plaintiffs” 

on the cover sheet, the Johnsons identify themselves as peoples of the United States of America 

and inhabitants of Pulaski County (Id.). In “Section II. Basis of Jurisdiction” on the cover sheet, 

the Johnsons identify diversity of citizenship between the parties as the basis of jurisdiction for 

this matter (Id.). In “Section III. Citizenship of Principal Parties” on the cover sheet, the Johnsons 

confusingly identify plaintiffs as “Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country” and defendants as 

“Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State” (Id.). The Court understands the 

citizenship of the parties to be a mistake, as the Johnsons are defendants in this action and citizens 

of this state whereas Deutsche Bank is the plaintiff in this action and does not appear to be 

incorporated or have its principal place of business in this state (Id.). Regardless, the Court notes 

that the Johnsons’ filing identifies diversity of citizenship as the basis of jurisdiction for this action 

(Id.). The Johnsons’ counterclaim appears to bring two state law claims against Deutsche Bank

and third-party defendant Kroencke Construction, Inc. (“Kroencke”): a quiet title action pursuant 

Case 4:20-cv-00121-KGB Document 28 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 5
5

to Arkansas Code Annotated § 18-60-502 and an adverse possession action pursuant to Arkansas 

Code Annotated § 18-11-106 (Dkt. No. 11, at 2-4). 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Johnsons’ notice of removal is not procedurally 

proper, as it was not timely filed within the time prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Even if it 

was procedurally proper, after reviewing the record before it, the Court finds that defendants have 

not carried their burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Altimore, 420 F.3d at 768. Because this case revolves around state law claims, this 

Court could only exercise jurisdiction over this action via diversity jurisdiction in accordance with 

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction cases can be subject to removal, but the Forum Defendant 

Rule precludes a home-state defendant from removing a diversity jurisdiction case from state court 

to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); Horton, 431 F.3d at 604. The Johnsons are residents 

and citizens of Arkansas, were named as defendants in the complaint, were served with that 

complaint, and voluntarily appeared to defend the state court eviction suit on September 13, 2019 

(Dkt. No. 9, at 3). Accordingly, Eighth Circuit precedent “prohibit[s] [this Court] from exercising 

diversity jurisdiction over this action because removal on diversity grounds would [ ] violate[] the 

forum-defendant rule.” Holbein, 2020 WL 467520, at *2. 

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, the Court grants Deutsche Bank’s motion to remand and remands 

this case to state court (Dkt. No. 8). Consequently, the Court denies as moot all other pending 

motions (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6, 10, 13, 19, 20).

It is so ordered, this 1st day of April, 2020.

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00121-KGB Document 28 Filed 04/01/20 Page 5 of 5