Rocket Docket: Federal Court in Northern District of Texas is On Another Planet When Pro Se’s Arrive in Court

This is the second case filed by the  purported sovereign citizens. Both cases have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

However, setting aside the fact they are sov cits and their filing is difficult to interpret, Magistrate Judge Toliver admits there are federal questions, the property is valued at $482k per realtor.com, and she makes no reference to Planet Lending, which would, if they are not based in Texas, provide diversity and jurisdiction in this case.

Indeed, upon downloading the executed summons for McCarthy Holthus (San Diego, California), and Planet Home Lending (New Haven, CT), this would render the Magistrate’s opinion and dismissal erroneous, in law.

Certainly, the pro se litigants sued a local lawyer for McCarthy, but see Moreno Energy, Inc. v. Marathon Oil Co., 884 F. Supp. 2d 577, 589 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

““ ‘A failure to allege facts establishing jurisdiction need not prove fatal to a complaint.’ ”

Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 887 (5th Cir.2000), quoting Canedy v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir.1997). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides,

“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”

This statute, which grants courts the authority and discretion to allow parties to cure defective allegations of jurisdiction, “should be liberally construed to allow a party to cure technical defects, including the failure to specifically allege the citizenship of parties.”

Menendez v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 364 Fed.Appx. 62, 66 (5th Cir.2010), citing Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1258 n. 5 (5th Cir.1988), and Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d at 887–88.”)

In short form, either federal question and/or diversity are present and the case should have been allowed to proceed and the plaintiffs allowed an opportunity to amend their complaint, as discussed below:-

Furthermore, if you take a moment to review the tab which follows about another sov cit case before these very judges in 2022, that case was removed from state court to federal court. Jurisdiction was retained, and briefings presented, including allowing the homeowner the opportunity to amend the complaint.

The Arbor’s were denied that opportunity in this case due to the erroneous dismissal.

The comparison case was removed to federal court by US Attorney for Ginnie Mae, bringing along the other named parties represented by Vincent Serafino Geary Waddell Jenevein / Locke Lord. Around 9 months later the case would be dismissed with prejudice on March 3, 2023.

In that case (Thomas), subject matter jurisdiction was raised as a reason to dismiss the government agency, but it was not a reason to dismiss the private banking/non bank entities. The court would rely upon failure to state a claim and/or not following a court order by homeowner to amend the complaint.

However, returning to real property Kaufman CAD tax records, it still shows that these sov cit (Thomas) is still the homeowner some 14 months or so later and HAR shows no sign of sale and/or foreclosure.

Perhaps the sovereign citizen paid the  foreclosure mill in silver coins after all.