Goulla v. Gool

W.D. Texas

Goulla v. Gool

DecidedAugust 22, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-00704

StatusUnknown

This text of Goulla v. Gool (Goulla v. Gool) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goulla v. Gool, (W.D. Tex. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT soe FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS . AUSTIN DIVISION 2DI9AUG 22 AM □□ CLERK Ua □□□□□ □□□ COU DARLA GOULLA, MICHAEL GOULLA, § WESTERN OS □□□□ AE ADAM ESQUIVEL, AND CHARLES § BY eee) □□ HAGGARD § □□□□□□ PLAINTIFFS, § § V. § § RANDY GOOL, GARY GOOL, EVAN GOOL, § GEORGE MCALPINE, WELLS FARGO § “704. BANK NA, GREEN TREE, DITECH, US § CAUSE NO. 1:19-CV-704-LY BANK, WALTER INVESTMENT, BRUCE § JOHNSON, JAMIE SILER, ANGELA § ZAVALA, RICHARD FRANKLIN, BRIA § DIMARCO, MICHELLE JONES, ANGELA § CAKE, KRISTY QUINTANILLA, § ALEXANDRA SALADO, NATALIE PAUL, § and DOES 1-10, § DEFENDANTS. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed what they have styled as their Notice of Removal of Cause No. 18-1381-C26, a case filed by Plaintiffs on October 23, 2018 in the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. Plaintiffs have moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. See Dkt. No. 5. Addressing the substance of Plaintiffs’ Motion is unnecessary, because this matter is not properly before this Court. There is no procedural mechanism by which Plaintiffs can remove their own state court case to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, civil actions brought in state courts over which the district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant, not by the plaintiff. This is true even where a plaintiff is “in the position” of a defendant regarding a counterclaim asserted against them. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Pearce, 297 F. Supp. 2d

891, 892-93 (N.D. Miss. 2003) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas. Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 106 (1941)). Plaintiffs chose to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the state court in the underlying proceeding. Therefore, this case has been improperly removed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions are DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. SIGNED this Liad day of August, 2019. EVEL TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT soe FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS . AUSTIN DIVISION 2DI9AUG 22 AM □□ CLERK Ua □□□□□ □□□ COU DARLA GOULLA, MICHAEL GOULLA, § WESTERN OS □□□□ AE ADAM ESQUIVEL, AND CHARLES § BY eee) □□ HAGGARD § □□□□□□ PLAINTIFFS, § § V. § § RANDY GOOL, GARY GOOL, EVAN GOOL, § GEORGE MCALPINE, WELLS FARGO § “704. BANK NA, GREEN TREE, DITECH, US § CAUSE NO. 1:19-CV-704-LY BANK, WALTER INVESTMENT, BRUCE § JOHNSON, JAMIE SILER, ANGELA § ZAVALA, RICHARD FRANKLIN, BRIA § DIMARCO, MICHELLE JONES, ANGELA § CAKE, KRISTY QUINTANILLA, § ALEXANDRA SALADO, NATALIE PAUL, § and DOES 1-10, § DEFENDANTS. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed what they have styled as their Notice of Removal of Cause No. 18-1381-C26, a case filed by Plaintiffs on October 23, 2018 in the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. Plaintiffs have moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. See Dkt. No. 5. Addressing the substance of Plaintiffs’ Motion is unnecessary, because this matter is not properly before this Court. There is no procedural mechanism by which Plaintiffs can remove their own state court case to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, civil actions brought in state courts over which the district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant, not by the plaintiff. This is true even where a plaintiff is “in the position” of a defendant regarding a counterclaim asserted against them. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Pearce, 297 F. Supp. 2d

891, 892-93 (N.D. Miss. 2003) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas. Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 106 (1941)). Plaintiffs chose to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the state court in the underlying proceeding. Therefore, this case has been improperly removed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that all pending motions are DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. SIGNED this Liad day of August, 2019. EVEL TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goulla v. Gool, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goulla-v-gool-txwd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack