Federal Home Loans Mortgage Corporation v. Laditi et alCase remanded to the County Court at Law Number 3 of Fort Bend County, Texas.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Federal 	Home 	Loans 	Mortgage
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Harjarat Laditi, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00933
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
In this forcible detainer action, Plaintiff Federal Home Loans Mortgage
Corporation filed a motion to remand the case, Dkt. 6, after Defendants
removed 	it 	based 	on 	federal 	question 	jurisdiction, 	see 	Dkt. 	1. 	Because
Defendants 	Harjarat 	Laditi, 	Felix 	Amos, 	and/or 	All 	Occupants 	of 	26066
Haggard Nest, Dr., Katy, TX 77494 (the disputed property) failed to respond,
the motion is deemed unopposed. S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. After carefully reviewing
the motion, Dkt. 6, the record, and the applicable law, it is recommended that
the motion to remand be granted.
Background
Defendants occupy the disputed property, which was sold at a foreclosure
sale on April 1, 2025. 	Dkt. 6-1 (substitute trustee’s deed). 	The entity who
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 7 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
bought the property, United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, conveyed it to Federal
Home Loans. Dkt. 6-2 (special warranty deed).
The day of the foreclosure sale, Defendants moved for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”), which was granted. See Dkt. 1-1 at 33-35. On June
13, 2025, one occupant, Felix Amos, filed a quiet title action in state court,
alleging that the foreclosure violated the TRO. See Dkt. 1-1 at 31-32.
Federal Home Loans sent Defendants a notice to vacate on April 25,
2025. Dkt. 6-4 at 13. When Defendants failed to vacate the property, Federal
Home Loans filed this action in state court. 	See Dkt. 6-4 (original petition).
On January 28, 2026, the state court entered a final judgment awarding
possession of the property to Federal Homes Loan. Dkt. 6-5 at 2.
Days after the final judgment was signed, Defendants removed the
action to this Court. 	Dkt. 1 (February 5, 2026 notice of removal). 	Federal
Home Loans moved to remand. 	Dkt. 6. 	Defendants did not respond. 	The
motion is ripe for resolution.
Legal standard
A state court action can be removed to federal court if the action could
originally have been filed in federal court. 	28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 	The sole
asserted basis for removal here is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which authorizes federal
courts to hear cases arising under federal law.
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 7 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
The removal statute must “be strictly construed and any doubt as to the
propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand.” 	In re Hot-Hed
Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The party invoking federal
jurisdiction “bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and
that removal was proper.” 	Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276
F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
Analysis
Federal Home Loans argues that this case must be remanded because
federal question jurisdiction is lacking, and no other grounds for jurisdiction
exist. Dkt. 6 at 5. The Court agrees.
Notably, Defendants’ failure to respond means that they have failed to
meet their burden to show that jurisdiction is proper. That shortcoming alone
would merit remand.
Regardless, settled law forecloses the sole asserted basis for jurisdiction.
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “a federal court has original or removal
jurisdiction only if a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-
pleaded complaint; generally, there is no federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff
properly pleads only a state law cause of action.” 	Bernhard v. Whitney Nat’l
Bank, 523 F.3d 546, 551 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.
Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983)). 	“[T]he fact that federal law
may provide a defense to a state claim is insufficient to establish federal
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 7 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
question jurisdiction.” Id. at 550; see also Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan
K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535 (1983) (“[I]t is the character of the action and
not 	the 	defense 	which 	determines 	whether 	there 	is 	federal 	question
jurisdiction.”).
The original petition asserts no federal causes of action. The sole claim
is for forcible detainer under Texas law. See Dkt. 6-4 at 2 (claims under “Rule
510 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Chapter 24 of the Texas
Property Code”). “It is well settled that a forcible detainer action is a state law
claim that provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction.” 	Patel v.
Houston, 2021 WL 6808301, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021) (quotation omitted),
adopted by 2022 WL 358252 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2022).
In their notice of removal, Defendants maintained that the underlying
state court proceedings violated their constitutional rights under the Due
Process Clause and the Takings Clause. 	See Dkt. 1 at 2. 	Those defenses,
however, are inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Homes 4
Rent Props. Eight, LLC v. Ortolani, 2015 WL 4635841, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4,
2015) (no jurisdiction where defendant claimed that the forcible detainer action
“violates [his] federal constitutional rights” because that assertion “is merely
a defense or counterclaim”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Garcia, 2012 WL
6089040, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2012) (constitutional issue asserted in
opposition to the motion to remand “cannot be considered by the court in
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 7 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
determining whether removal [of the forcible detainer suit] was proper”). And
even counterclaims premised on federal law—assuming that any could be
asserted—cannot provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Holmes
Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002); see
also Renegade Swish, LLC v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 697-98 (5th Cir. 2017).
In short, Defendants have failed to prove that subject-matter jurisdiction
exists. As a result, this case should be remanded to state court.
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Federal
Home 	Loans 	Mortgage 	Corporation’s 	motion 	to 	remand 	(Dkt. 	6) 	be
GRANTED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on April 15, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 7 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5