Salinas-Storey v. loanDepot.com, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

Olga Salinas-Storey,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:25-cv-00483-P

LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On May 8, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. FCR, ECF No. 11. The FCR recommended the Court sua sponte remand the case to the 271st Judicial District Court, Wise County, Texas because a plaintiff cannot remove an action to federal court. Id. at 1. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the FCR on May 19, 2025. Objection, ECF No. 12. The Court accordingly conducted a de novo review of the FCR. As detailed below, the Court will AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision, ADOPT the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR (ECF No. 11), and OVERRULE Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff raises the following objections to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR: • The substantive party status controls removal rights • Federal question jurisdiction is constitutionally invoked • Due process and property rights demand federal forum • Federal Reserve and pledging procedures were overlooked • Supremacy Clause and federal preemption apply The Court OVERRULES these objections because, as the Magistrate Judge recognized, a plaintiff cannot remove an action.! Thus, having conducted a de novo review of the ALJ’s Decision, the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and Plaintiffs Objection, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ’s Decision, ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections. Accordingly, itis ORDERED that this case be remanded to the 271st Judicial District Court, Wise County, Texas. SO ORDERED on this 19th day of May 2025.

MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

128 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that an action “may be removed by the defendant or the defendants.” (emphasis added). Thus, only defendants may remove a case from state court to federal court. See Kennedy v. Breidenbach, No. 4:06-CV-584-Y, 2006 WL 2583148, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2006) (finding “the right of removal by statute is only available to defendants, and a plaintiff may not remove an action from state court”) (citations omitted); Jerry Family v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 161 F. App’x 367 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding “plaintiffs cannot ‘remove’ to federal court a case they chose to file in state court”); see also Garnett v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg., No. 3:11-CV033-66- M- (BF), 2011 WL 6968148, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2011) Wemanding the removed case to state court finding “there is no legal basis for a plaintiff to remove her own case’), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 75756 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2012).