Bannister v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES E. BANISTER,1 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 25-00479-CV-W-BP
)
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al., 	)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT GINNIE MAE REMIC TRUST 2017-009
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This case was filed in state court in April 2025 and was removed to this Court on June 25,
2025. 	The Court (1) dismissed Defendant CSM Foreclosure Trust Corp. (“CSM”) without
prejudice because it was fraudulently joined and (2) dismissed Nationstar Mortgage LLC
(“Nationstar”) with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to state a claim against it. (Doc. 26; Doc.
28.)
Meanwhile, a third defendant—Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2017-009 (“Ginnie Mae”)—was
not timely served. On October 8, 2025, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause
why Ginnie Mae should not be dismissed. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff responded, and thereafter the Court
issued an Order (1) requesting that Nationstar file information regarding how and where Ginnie
Mae could be served and (2) extending the deadline for Ginnie Mae to be served to December 8,
2025. 	(Doc. 35.) 	The information requested from Nationstar was filed on November 3, 2025,
(Doc. 44), but Ginnie Mae was not served before the December 8 deadline. 	On December 17,
1 In their Notice of Removal, Defendants spell Plaintiff’s surname “Bannister.” In his own filings, Plaintiff spells his
surname “Banister.” The Court utilizes Plaintiff’s spelling.
Case 4:25-cv-00479-BP Document 51 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
2025, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to serve Ginnie Mae and file a Return of Service
by January 2, 2026. The Court advised Plaintiff that “[i]f these events do not occur, Ginnie Mae
will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve. See F ED. C IV. P. 4(m).” (Doc. 48, p. 2.)
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Return of Service reflecting that Ginnie Mae has been
served. He has filed a document that purports to be a Return of Service reflecting that Nationstar
and CSM were served, (Doc. 50), but even if they were properly served, this is insufficient to
demonstrate service on Ginnie Mae. In fact, Plaintiff previously contended CSM had been served,
and in its December 17 Order the Court advised service on the other Defendants was irrelevant
because the issue to be addressed was service on Ginnie Mae. (Doc. 48, p. 1 n.2.)
The Court has provided notice to Plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if proof of
service on Ginnie Mae was not filed by January 2, 2026. A Return of Service reflecting service
on Ginnie Mae has not been filed. 	Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Ginnie Mae is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Beth Phillips
BETH PHILLIPS, JUDGE
DATE: January 6, 2026 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 4:25-cv-00479-BP Document 51 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2