North East Pine Village Homeowners Association v. Pena DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NORTH EAST PINE VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
D/B/A PINE VILLAGE NORTH
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
V.
CARLOS PENA,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ 	Civil Action No. H-25-5086
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff North East Pine Village Home Owners
Association's Motion to Remand (Document No. 4). Having considered the motion,
submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be
granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a matter involving a suit for possession of real estate. Plaintiff North
East Pine Village Home Owners Association d/b/a Pine Village North Association
obtained the property located at 12315 W. Village Dr., Unit #B, Houston, TX 77039
(the "Property':) through a foreclosure sale on October 3,202.3. Plaintiff alleges that
pro se Defendant Carlos Pena remained on the property despite Plaintiff's delivery
of a notice to vacate delivered on September 5, 2024.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 15, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05086 Document 5 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

Based on the foregoing, on August 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit against
Defendant Carlos Pena in the County Civil Court at Law #2 of Harris County, Texas,
seeking to enforce their ownership of the Property. 1 On October 24, 2025, Defendant
removed the case to this Court pursuant to federal 	question jurisdiction. 2 On
November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion to remand. 3 Defendant did not
respond to Plaintiffs motion either by the date required under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or by the date of this Order.
IL STANDARD OF REVIEW
A defendant mayremove a case to federal court if the federal court has subject
matter jurisdiction to hear the original complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 	Federal
courts have limited jurisdiction, so any doubts regarding whether federal jurisdiction
is proper are resolved against federal jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200
F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). When evaluating a motion to remand, all factual
allegations are considered in the light most favorable to ·the plaintiff, and any
contested fact issues are resolved in the plaintiffs favor. See Guillory v. PPG Indus.,
1 See Notice of Removal, Document No. 1, Exhibit 1 at 5 (Plaintiff's Original
Complaint).
2 See Notice of Removal, Document No. 1 at 3 (contendihg that federal question
jurisdiction exists because Defendant has asserted claims under federal law).
3 PlaintiffNorth East Pine Village Home Owners Association's Motion to Remand,
Document No. 4 at 1.
2
Case 4:25-cv-05086 Document 5 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Gasch v. Harford Acc. & lndem.
Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007).
A federal court may only assert subject matter jurisdiction over a matter when
authorized by the federal constitution or by statute. Energy Mgmt. Servs., LLC v.
City of Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255, 257 (5th Cir. 2014). A federal court may exercise
jurisdiction over any civil action arising under the federal constitution, statutes, or
treaties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law when a plaintiffs
"well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of
action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a
substantial question of federal law." Griffith v. Alcon Rsch., Ltd., 712 F. App'x 406,
408 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves to remand this case back to state court, contending that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that removal was improper. Defendant
did not respond to Plaintiffs motion to remand, failing to rebut or offer evidence to
counter Plaintiffs contentions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond is
taken as a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4. Regardless of
Defendant's failure to respond to the pending motion to remand, the Court will
consider the merits of Plaintiffs motion. The Court construes all pro se filings
liberally. See Erickson v. Paradus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
3
Case 4:25-cv-05086 Document 5 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

"The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 •
days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of
the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or
. proceeding is based[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(l).
Here, Plaintiff contends that removal 	is 	improper because "[r]emoval is
untimely ... [and] [n]ot all defendants have joined in the removal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A)." 4 Plaintiff further contends that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction because complete diversity does not exist, and becarn~e Plaintiffs
claim does not arise under federal law. 5 Defendant offers no rebuttal. A review of
the record in this 	matter reveals . that Defendant was 	served with Plaintiffs
Complaint on July 25, 2025, and that Defendant's Notice of Removal was not filed
until October 24, 2025. 6
Based on the foregoing, and the clear language of the statute requiring that a
notice of removal be filed within 30 days after receipt of the complaint, the Court
4 PlaintiffNorth East Pine Village Home Owners Association's Motion to Remand,
Document No. 4 at 3--4.
5 See Plaintiff North East Pine Village Home Owners Association's Motion to
Remand, Document No. 4 at 2.
6 See Plaintiff North East Pine Village Home Owners Association's Motion to
Remand, Document No. 4, Exhibit 7 at 1 (Return of Service Carlos Pena); Notice of
Removal, Document No. 1 at 1.
4
Case 4:25-cv-05086 Document 5 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

finds that Defendant's removal was untimely. 7 As such, the Court finds that removal
was improper and that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand to the County Civil Court at
Law #2 of Harris County, Texas should be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff North East Pine Village Home Owners Association's
Motion to 	Remand 	(Document No. 	4) 	is 	GRANTED. 	This 	case 	is 	hereby
REMANDED to the County Civil Court at Law #2 of Harris County, Texas.
THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 	/~ day of December, 2025.
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
7 Considering the Court's finding that Defendant's removal was untimely, the Court
declines to consider Plaintiffs remaining arguments relating to the. Court's federal question
jurisdiction and Defendant's removal's insufficiencies under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(l).
5
Case 4:25-cv-05086 Document 5 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 5