No. 22-6954

Juanita Burch v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, L.L.C.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-03-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bankruptcy-court bankruptcy-procedure bankruptcy-removal civil-procedure court-jurisdiction federal-jurisdiction lien-extinguishment loan-management procedural-error removal summary-judgment
Key Terms:
Privacy
Latest Conference: 2023-04-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 2008 bankruptcy extinguished the lien on the property and the lender's refusal to follow the court's instructions to reinstate the loan means Rushmore should not have removed the case to federal court

Question Presented (from Petition)

questions presented are: 1. The defendant, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC (Rushmore) lost a hearing in the state court because they did not have a loan on the property and were trying to illegally take it from Burch. Burch’s husband had been in bankruptcy, but the case was closed. The case could not be removed to the federal district court because there was no federal question and there was no diversity. The bankruptcy court allowed the removal as a related to case correctly stating that Burch was part of the 2008 bankruptcy but erred in citing the 2012 bankruptcy because Burch was not part of that bankruptcy and in that bankruptcy the property was abandoned. If the 2008 bankruptcy extinguished the lien on the : property and the lender refused to follow the court . ii instructions to reinstate the loan does that mean that Rushmore should not remove the case to the federal court? 2. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(a)(1) as well as FRBP 7012(b) and FRBP 7016 clearly states that the removal must contain a statement that upon removal of the claim or cause of action the party filing the notice does or does not consent to entry of final orders or judgment by the bankruptcy court. FRBP 7012(b) Based on the law as written and approved by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States can a bankruptcy judge just assume that Rushmore meant to include it in their removal and make their rulings in defiance of the written law and if not then If a ruling is made in defiance of FRBP 9027(a)(1), is it valid? 3. FRCP 12(b)(6) does not apply to removed cases because federal courts only have jurisdiction over live cases in controversy not mute cases. If the court dismisses a removed case under FRCP 12(b)(6) must the Court remand the case to the state court from which it came? TI

Docket Entries

2023-05-01
Petition DENIED.
2023-04-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/28/2023.
2023-03-16
Waiver of right of respondent Rushmore Loan Management Serv., L.L.C. to respond filed.
2023-02-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 6, 2023)

Attorneys

Juanita Burch
Juanita Burch — Petitioner
Juanita Burch — Petitioner
Rushmore Loan Management Serv., L.L.C.
Shelley L. HopkinsHopkins Law, PLLC, Respondent
Shelley L. HopkinsHopkins Law, PLLC, Respondent