The Bank of New York Mellon FKA The Bank of New York as Trustee For The Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-4 v. Singleton et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON,
Plaintiff.
V.
REBECCA J. SINGLETON, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00162
OPINION AND ORDER
This case has been referred to me for an initial pretrial and scheduling
conference. See Dkt. 3. Before anything else happens in this case, however, this
court must assure itself of its jurisdiction to hear this dispute.
On May 22, 2026, Defendants purported to remove this case from the
County Court at Law No. 3, Brazoria County, Texas. See Dkt. 1. According to
Defendants’ 	notice 	of 	removal, 	Plaintiff 	seeks 	“to 	sale/evict 	and 	unlawfully
dispossess defendants of property located at 3006 Brahman Drive, Manvel, Texas
77578.” Id. at 2. Defendants’ notice of removal is procedurally and substantively
deficient.
First, Defendants claim to have attached “copies of all process, pleadings,
orders, and other papers filed in the state court action.” Id. at 3. No such papers
are attached. Defendants must file “a copy of all process, pleadings, and
orders 	served 	upon 	[them 	in 	the 	state 	court 	action],” 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1446(a), by Friday, June 12, 2026.
Second, the court questions whether Defendants have served Plaintiff with
notice of this removal. The Local Rules require all papers to “have at the end a
certificate reflecting how and when service has been made or why service is not
required.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 5.3 (emphasis added) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)). The
certificate of service appended to Defendants’ notice of removal states: “I/we
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00162 Document 5 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on each attorney of
record or party in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 22,
2026.” Dkt. 1 at 5. This is insufficient. Defendants must specify how they served
Plaintiff. Was it by mail? Personal delivery? Leaving it at Plaintiff’s office or usual
place of abode? I will not assume that service has been completed without this
information. Defendants have until Friday, June 12, 2026, to file an
amended 	certificate 	of 	service 	showing 	how 	and 	when 	Plaintiff
received notice of this attempted removal.
Third, given that Plaintiffs have not complied with any of the other
procedural requirements for removal, the court questions whether Defendants
have notified the state court of this removal. This is a substantive deficiency
because removal is not complete unless and until Defendants notify the clerk of the
state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (giving written notice to plaintiff and filing a
copy of the notice of removal with the clerk of the state court are required to “effect
the removal”). Defendants must understand: This case has not been removed
from 	state 	court, 	and 	the 	state 	court 	may 	continue 	to 	exercise
jurisdiction until the state court clerk is provided with a copy of
Defendants’ notice of this removal.
Fourth, 	Defendants 	do 	not 	assert 	a 	recognized 	ground 	for 	removal
jurisdiction. Defendants’ only grounds for removal are that Defendants have
asserted federal causes of action against Plaintiff. See Dkt. 1 at 3–4. “[I]t is now
settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal
defense.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Thus, Defendants’
federal causes of action, asserted in response to Plaintiff’s state law claims, cannot
be the basis for removal. The “well pleaded complaint” that Defendants reference
in their notice of removal refers to the Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, not the
Defendants’ answer or counterclaim. See Dkt. 1 at 3. Thus, Defendants must
identify a basis for federal jurisdiction that arises from the face of Plaintiff’s state
court petition.
Case 3:26-cv-00162 Document 5 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Defendants have until Monday, June 22, 2026, to amend their
notice of removal and identify a basis for federal jurisdiction from the
face of Plaintiff’s state court petition. Failure to establish a basis for
federal 	jurisdiction 	by 	Monday, 	June 	22, 	2026, 	will 	result 	in
remanding this action to state court.
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff’s counsel at:
Coury M. Jacocks
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
1320 Greenway Drive, Suite 780
Irving, Texas 75038
SIGNED this 	day of June 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00162 Document 5 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3