Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pro se defendants Gregory Lee and Shiho Lee filed a single notice purporting to remove six Texas state-court cases arising in Comal and Harris counties. The matters included a delinquent property-tax collection action and a foreclosure-related case that the district court had previously remanded. The Lees paid no federal filing fee, sought to recast themselves as plaintiffs, and filed numerous petitions and motions, including requests to consolidate the state actions and reconsider state-court proceedings.
A magistrate judge ordered the Lees to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. They did not comply despite continuing to submit numerous other filings. Comal County moved to remand, arguing that federal jurisdiction was absent, the Tax Injunction Act barred adjudication, 28 U.S.C. § 1443 did not authorize removal, and the removal suffered from multiple procedural defects.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Comal County’s motion and ordered the matters returned to their respective state courts. It held that the Lees had shown no basis for federal jurisdiction and that § 1443 did not support removal. It also concluded that remand, rather than dismissal, was the proper remedy for their failure to pay the filing fee in a removed case. The attempt to remove six separate actions through one notice, including a Harris County case filed outside the Western District of Texas, supplied additional procedural grounds for remand.
Finding no objectively reasonable basis for removal, the court authorized plaintiffs to seek costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It also imposed a $1,000 sanction on the Lees, added a $100 sanction for each unauthorized future filing made before payment, prohibited further removal of the six identified state cases, and required advance judicial permission for any future notice of removal in the Western District of Texas. The court further enjoined the Lees from commencing civil actions in any federal district court within the Fifth Circuit without first obtaining leave from a judge in the filing district.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant’s failure to pay the federal filing fee warrants remand to state court rather than dismissal of the removed action.
- Removing six separate state cases through one notice—and removing a case to a district that does not embrace the state court—violated the removal procedures.
- Repeated meritless removals and abusive filings supported fee-shifting, monetary sanctions, and broad prefiling restrictions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the escalating remedies available when litigants repeatedly misuse removal to delay state proceedings. Beyond remanding for lack of jurisdiction, the court shifted removal-related expenses, imposed monetary penalties, and entered restrictions designed to prevent additional ineffective removals.
The order also confirms that a prefiling injunction may extend beyond a single case when narrower sanctions and prior warnings have failed, while preserving a process through which the affected litigants may seek judicial permission for a potentially valid filing.