Federal Judges

Another Foreclosure Case Parachutes into Judge Hittner’s Court. This Time Askin’ to Sanction Pro Se’s for Removal

It’s amazin’ how all foreclosure cases are distributed in S.D. Tex. Federal Court. We take no position on pro se’s case. Just the Blind Draw.

Pine Village North Association v. Fisher

(4:21-cv-02118) District Court, S.D. Texas

Before Snr Judge David Hittner

JUL 29,  2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 14, 2021



Plaintiff, Pine Village North Association, (“Plaintiff”) file this Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, and in support thereof…


Summary of the Argument

Defendants, Dennis Fisher and Sheryl Fisher have improperly removed the underlying lawsuit, as the Notice of Removal is not timely, and the pleadings do not create federal question jurisdiction nor do any of the issues presented in Defendant’s Notice of Removal. The Defendants have removed this case to federal court on the eve of trial in state court to further delay proceedings and in so doing has wasted the Court’s time and resources. Defendants’ Notice of Removal was brought in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Arguments and Authorities

A. Legal Standard

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1).

B. Analysis

Defendants’ Notice of Removal was filed roughly 5 years after Plaintiff filed its Original Petition in violation of the 30 day requirement under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446. Furthermore, Defendants’ Notice of Removal falsely asserts to the Court that the Defendants have “asserted two causes of action for violation of the United States Constitution,” which they did not.

1. Defendants’ Notice of Removal is an abuse of process and was brought in bad faith.

The underlying suit was filed on August 24, 2016. This matter was set for bench trial on the two-week trial docket beginning Monday, June 28, 2021. Upon being notified that the underlying case was being called for trial that week, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal to delay the trial proceedings.

Furthermore, despite Defendants’ representation to the Court that Defendants have asserted causes of action for violations of the Federal Constitution, a review of the pleadings in the underlying suit indicate the Defendants’ representation to the Court are false and a violation of Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

There are no issues pending in the underlying suit that would give rise to federal jurisdiction. The subject matter of the underlying lawsuit is between a homeowners

association in Harris County, Texas and a property owner for the collection of delinquent maintenance assessments which are owed to Plaintiff under the terms and conditions of covenants and restrictions on file with the Harris County Real Property Records.

2. Defendants’ conduct is cause for sanctions.

Rule 11 sanctions may be awarded by the Court in the context of a removal. Section 1446(a) expressly requires that a notice of removal be signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). “This reference to Rule 11 is redundant because Rule 11 would apply anyway, but the reference constitutes an extra-special warning to removing defendants that they are subject to sanctions if the averments in their notice of removal are not well grounded in fact and warranted by law.” Gray v. New York Life Ins. Co., 906 F. Supp. 628, 630 (N.D. Ala. 1995).

Defendants’ improper Notice of Removal was brought in bad faith on the eve of trial in order to delay the trial from moving forward. The timing of Defendants’ Notice of Removal, combined with the Defendants’ fraudulent representations to the Court that the pleadings contained claims focused on the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution (as well as Sections 17 and 19 of the Texas Constitution) is an absolute waste of the Court’s time, resources and represents a serious abuse of process.

Moreover, the Defendants’ actions have resulted in numerous other defendants engaged in litigation with Plaintiff to file identical notices of removal which also contain the same misrepresentations in order to delay the trial court proceedings. Plaintiff is a homeowner association and as a result has multiple active lawsuits pending in Harris County. Should Defendants’ frivolous actions go unpunished, defendants will continue to abuse the federal court removal procedure in order to delay Plaintiff from bringing suit for failure to pay homeowner maintenance assessments. See Case No. 4:21-CV-2131; and 4:21-CV-02107, a copy of the identical removals are attached as Exhibit A.

As a result of Defendants’ untimely and improper removal of the state court action to federal court, Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $5,000.00 in attorney fees, as well as the recovery of all costs and fees. In addition, Plaintiff requests the Court sanction Defendants in the amount of $5,000.00 payable to the Court.

Defendants’ Notice of Removal was untimely and contained fraudulent representations to the Court regarding the facts of this case resulting in the waste of the Court’s time and resources. Defendants’ Notice of Removal was frivolous and represents an abuse of process for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Sanctions.

Respectfully submitted,


BY: /s/ Christopher J. Archambault

TEXAS SBN: 24082634
FEDERAL SBN: 1674904 17044
TEXAS 77058
TELEPHONE: (281) 480-6888
FAX: (281) 218-9151
E-MAIL: archambault.filing@daughtryfarine.com


I hereby certify that all counsel of record have been served with Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions through the Court’s electronic filing system as prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 28th day of July, 2021.

/s/ Christopher Archambault
Christopher Archambault


Pursuant to the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas, I hereby certify that on July 26th and 27th, 2021, via telephone call and e-mail at dcfisher5219@sbcglobal.net, counsel for Plaintiff attempted to confer with Defendants to verify that this motion is opposed but did not receive a response.

/s/ Christopher Archambault Christopher Archambault

Butt Your Honor

While Texas Attorney Dennis Duffy’s behavior was clearly outside professional bounds, neither counsel was a role model of professional conduct, Judge Lee Rosenthal, S.D. Tex. wrote.

Pro Se Obtains Reverse and Remand from 3-Panel at Eleventh Circuit

A pro se author, Benjamin Vient, convinced the 3-panel at the Eleventh Circuit to revive his copyright infringement lawsuit against a Florida newspaper after Judge Rosenberg of S.D. Fl. dismissed his case with prejudice.

The Hot Potato Rule and Florida Supreme Court Shows Its Bite is Gator-Sized

This is a GOOD case example where the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in an underlying case and sent the case to The Florida Bar for investigation.

Another Foreclosure Case Parachutes into Judge Hittner’s Court. This Time Askin’ to Sanction Pro Se’s for Removal
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top