United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. JORDAN, III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
to avoid foreclosure on their home, pro se Plaintiffs Bobby
and Mary Hopson filed this suit in the Chancery Court of
Rankin County, Mississippi, against Specialized Loan
Servicing, LLC; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. In their state-court Complaint, the
Hopsons asserted a “claim to quiet title[, ] set aside
foreclosure sale[, ] cancel note and deed of trust for fraud,
usury, slander of title, [and because] the statute of
limitations has expired.” Compl. [1-1] at 1. Defendants
removed the case to this Court on October 18, 2017.
See Not. of Removal . Since then, the parties
have filed fourteen motions. This Order addresses six of them
in an effort to establish jurisdiction and clean up the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
December 6, 2017, the Hopsons filed a motion to remand saying
this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Mot. to Remand
 at 1 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)). “Federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is
not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994) (citations omitted). By statute, federal
jurisdiction will exist when the complaint raises a federal
question and when there exists diversity of citizenship.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (providing that
federal-question jurisdiction exists over “all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States”), 1332(a) (providing diversity
jurisdiction where parties are “citizens of different
States” and amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000).
Both types of jurisdiction exist in this case.
with federal-question jurisdiction, the Hopsons plead
numerous federal claims in their Complaint. See
Compl. [1-1] at 12-13 (pleading claims under Truth in Lending
Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1640, et
seq., and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et
seq.). This alone is sufficient to create
also removed based on diversity of citizenship, claiming that
they are citizens of Ohio, Delaware, Illinois, and
California. See Not. of Removal ; see
also Defs.' Resp.  at 8. The Hopsons say they
are Mississippi citizens, see Compl. [1-1] at 4, and
they have not challenged Defendants' claimed citizenship
or the amount in controversy. Diversity jurisdiction
only other jurisdictional issue is the Hopsons' argument
that “the procedural rules were not followed to move
this case to Federal court so this court lacks proper
jurisdiction.” Mot. to Remand  at 2. Motions to
remand based on procedural defects “must be made within
30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). Here, Defendants removed the case on
October 18, 2017, and the Hopsons sought remand on December
6, 2017. Any procedural defects were waived.
of these reasons, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction;
the Hopsons' motion to remand  is denied.
Motions for Sanctions
Hopsons filed three essentially identical motions for
sanctions against Attorneys John T. Rouse, Greg Massey, Mark
H. Tyson, and their law firms. See Pls.' Mots.
for Sanctions [21, 22, 23]. Each motion relies on Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The motions are procedurally
defective and substantively meritless.
provides that an attorney, by presenting a pleading to the
Court, certifies to the best of his “knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances” that “the claims,
defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new
law . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2). “If, after
notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court
determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may
impose an appropriate sanction . . . .” Id. R.
11(c)(2) provides the procedure by which a party moves for
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made
separately from any other motion and must describe the
specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The
motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be
filed or be presented to the court if the challenged
paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or
appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or
within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court
may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) (emphasis added). These procedures
require strict compliance. See In rePratt,
524 F.3d 580, 588 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have
continually held that ...