Dunn et al v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
PATRICK M. DUNN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 2:26-cv-92
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 12, 2026 by filing a Verified Complaint in state
court alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (Compl., ECF No. 1-1). 	They also assert a claim to quiet title (id.). 	On March 12, 2026,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order in state court (Mot., ECF No.
1-2). The state court granted the motion on March 13, 2026 (State Court Temporary Restraining
Order, ECF No. 1-3 at PageID.61–63). 	The state court set a preliminary injunction hearing for
April 17, 2026 (Notice, ECF No. 1-4). Defendant removed on April 16, 2026, the day before that
hearing, representing that this Court could properly exercise jurisdiction over this matter (Notice
of Removal, ECF No. 1). 	On April 20, 2026, the Court extended the state court’s temporary
restraining order and set a briefing schedule regarding the preliminary injunction motion.
Shortly thereafter, Defendant reversed its position. Defendant represented that the notice
of removal it had filed was invalid because Plaintiffs had actually filed dismissal papers “in the
State Court on April 16, 2026, before [Defendant] mailed its Notice of Filing Removal to the State
Court on April 17, 2026” (Notice, ECF No. 6 at PageID.80). According to Defendant, “[b]ecause
Case 2:26-cv-00092-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 1
of 2

the removal had not yet become effective at the time Plaintiffs’ Notice of Dismissal was filed and
entered in State Court, the State Court retained jurisdiction,” indicating “Plaintiffs’ voluntary
dismissal [in the state court] is valid and operative” (id.). 	Given that the state court case “was
dismissed before removal became effective,” no “claims remain pending before this Court” (id.).
Additionally, “Counsel for Defendant provided a copy of this Notice to Plaintiffs’ counsel as a
courtesy prior to filing, and Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated that there is no objection” to this
recitation of the facts nor “to the relief requested” by Defendant. Defendant “respectfully requests
that this Court enter an order: (1) acknowledging Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of the underlying
State Court action; (2) staying all pending deadlines in this matter pending dismissal of this action
or such other direction as the Court deems appropriate; and (3) closing this case, with each party
bearing its own costs and attorney fees” (id.).
After careful review of the submissions of the parties, the supporting exhibits appended
thereto, and relevant authorities, the Court concludes that this matter should be dismissed. See 28
U.S.C. § 1446(d).
Accordingly, for good cause shown:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the temporary restraining order in this matter is
DISSOLVED and this matter is DISMISSED for the reasons stated above. A separate judgment
will issue, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.
Dated: April 28, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 2:26-cv-00092-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 2
of 2