Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 19, 2023

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:22-cv-03117
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
17
Civil ProcedureFee PetitionPro Se
In one sentence

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak: Judge Menendez granted sanctions, awarding removal-related fees and costs and restricting Mashak’s future filings in Minnesota.

Who this affects

Donald Mashak must pay Fannie Mae’s reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by his removal of the case. He is also restricted from filing or removing actions in the District of Minnesota without prior judicial approval or representation by counsel.

What happened

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak concerned Donald Mashak’s second attempt to move the same foreclosure proceeding from state court to federal court. The federal court had already sent the case back because federal jurisdiction was lacking and the removal was too late.

Fannie Mae asked the court to make Mashak pay its costs and attorney’s fees and to restrict his future federal filings. Mashak did not respond to the sanctions motion, even after the court gave him additional time. The court found that his removal had no objectively reasonable basis and that his history included repeated improper removals and appeals.

Judge Menendez granted Fannie Mae’s sanctions motion. She ordered Mashak to pay Fannie Mae’s reasonable removal-related costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, and required Fannie Mae to document those amounts. She also restricted Mashak from filing actions in the District of Minnesota or removing cases there unless he first gets judicial approval or is represented by counsel; the court did not prospectively deny him the ability to seek fee-waived status.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Mashak · No. 0:22-cv-03117
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
July 19, 2023

Background

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) moved for sanctions against Donald Mashak after he removed a foreclosure proceeding from state court to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Fannie Mae argued that the removal was frivolous and vexatious, that Mashak had used improper litigation tactics, and that he improperly refused to consent to sending the case back to state court. Fannie Mae sought attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) and 1927, and the court’s inherent authority. It also sought restrictions on Mashak’s future federal filings and a prospective denial of any application to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court had previously granted Fannie Mae’s motion to remand. It concluded that the state-court complaint did not show a federal claim, that Mashak could not remove the case based on diversity jurisdiction under the forum-defendant rule, and that the 2022 removal was far beyond the 30-day removal deadline. The court also rejected Mashak’s argument that he could create federal jurisdiction by intending to assert claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241, explaining that the statute is criminal and does not provide a private right of action, and that removal jurisdiction generally depends on the initial complaint rather than a defendant’s anticipated counterclaims.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a court that remands a case may require payment of costs and actual expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the removal. The court explained that fees generally depend on whether the removal had an objectively reasonable basis when it was filed.

The court found that Mashak lacked even an arguable basis for removal. It relied on earlier rulings explaining that the foreclosure proceeding lacked a basis for federal-question jurisdiction, that the forum-defendant rule barred removal based solely on diversity jurisdiction, and that Mashak had been served years before the 2022 removal. The court found that a reasonable person in Mashak’s position would have known that the removal was improper. It therefore ordered Mashak to pay Fannie Mae’s just costs and expenses incurred as a result of the removal, including attorney’s fees.

Because the court awarded costs and expenses under § 1447(c), it did not decide whether the same payment could also be authorized under Rule 11 or the court’s inherent authority.

Filing Restriction

The court considered whether Mashak’s litigation history justified a filing restriction. It cited his repeated removals of state-court cases without a proper basis, repeated attempts to appeal remand orders that were not appealable, and other litigation that courts had found frivolous or lacking a good-faith basis. The court also found that his removals had caused unnecessary expenses for opposing parties and imposed burdens on the courts.

The court concluded that a restriction was appropriate and narrowly tailored. It ordered that Mashak be placed on the District of Minnesota’s restricted-filer list and prohibited him from filing any action in that district, whether started in federal court or removed from state court, unless he first obtained approval from a district or magistrate judge or was represented by counsel.

The court declined to include Fannie Mae’s requested prospective denial of any application to proceed without paying filing fees, finding that the filing restriction was sufficient to deter future abusive litigation.

Order

Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that Fannie Mae’s Motion for Sanctions was GRANTED. Mashak must pay Fannie Mae’s just costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, resulting from the notice of removal. Fannie Mae was required to file an affidavit or declaration and supporting exhibits establishing its reasonable fees and expenses within 14 days of the order, after which Mashak would have 14 days to respond. The order also imposed the District of Minnesota filing restriction described above.

The authoritative version

Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.