Braden v. United States of America et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MONICA L. BRADEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 	) 	No. 26-03021-CV-S-DPR
AGRICULTURE, RURAL HOUSING 	)
SERVICE, FORMERLY FARMERS 	)
HOME ADMINISTRATION, and 	)
)
ARVEST BANK, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant the United States of America, on behalf of its agency the United States Department of
Agriculture, Rural Housing Service on March 19, 2026. (Doc. 7.) The United States moves to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint against it pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. 	Per Local Rule 7.0(c), suggestions opposing the Motion, if any, were due
within fourteen days, or by April 2, 2026. To date, however, no opposing suggestions have been
filed, and as a result, the Motion is unopposed. 	Upon review, for the reasons set forth in the
Motion, the Court finds that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity as to
Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Complaint against the United
States must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint against the United States of America, on behalf
of its agency the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service is DISMISSED
Case 6:26-cv-03021-DPR Document 8 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This does not end the Court’s inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction, as federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction and the threshold requirement in every federal action is jurisdiction.
Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck, 999 F.3d 641, 646 (8th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, a court has an
independent obligation to confirm that jurisdiction is proper. E.g., FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas,
493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2014).
On January 20, 2026, the United States removed this action to this Court from the Circuit
Court of Taney County, Missouri. The United States asserted the jurisdictional basis for removal
was the United States is a defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (Doc. 1 at 3.) At the time
of removal, the Court had supplemental jurisdiction over the claim for wrongful foreclosure
against the other Defendant, Arvest Bank, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, a district court
“may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if – the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Here, because the United States has been dismissed from this action, the Court no longer has
original jurisdiction over this action. 	Under these circumstances, and considering that Plaintiff
originally filed this action in state court and Arvest Bank has yet to be served, the Court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim for wrongful foreclosure against Arvest Bank.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk’s Office is directed to REMAND
this action to the Circuit Court of Taney County, Missouri for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ David P. Rush
DAVID P. RUSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATE: April 9, 2026
Case 6:26-cv-03021-DPR Document 8 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 2