Opinion ID: 158943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction and Removal

Text: The Roscoes’ challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction is twofold. First, they contend that the state court record was not transmitted to the district court. According to the Roscoes, the absence of these documents should have prevented the district court from exercising jurisdiction. Second, they point to the district court’s language in the order denying their motion for a default judgment that the “attempted service by mail” on Bank United and Freddie Mac was “ineffective.” Id. , Doc. 30, at 2. If this service was ineffective, say the Roscoes, then the defendants were not parties to the case and could not have been subject to the district court’s jurisdiction. Because removal is typically an issue of statutory construction, “we review a district court’s determination of the propriety of removal de novo.” Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. Partnership , ___ F.3d ____, No. 98-5053, 1999 WL 791587, at  (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 1999) (citation omitted). We conclude the Roscoes’ arguments lack merit. First, the documents before the district court were sufficient to permit removal. To its notice of removal, Freddie Mac attached copies of the summonses served on itself and Bank United, the Roscoes’ complaint, and each document appended to the complaint. No more was required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (stating that a defendant or defendants “desiring to remove any civil action” shall file a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of 8 the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action”). Second, the Roscoes’ “ineffective service” argument also fails. Putting aside the issue of whether the Roscoes could have pursued their complaint in any court if they failed to serve the defendants in accordance with state law, the defendants answered the complaint and subjected themselves to the district court’s jurisdiction. ROA, Docs. 2, 5. Moreover, it is clear that Freddie Mac’s notice of removal was otherwise proper, since 12 U.S.C. § 1452 provided the district court with original jurisdiction over the action. 4