Madhu Estates, LLC v. Tompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Madhu Estates, LLC
v. 	Case No. 18-cv-555-PB
Judith Tompson
O R D E R
After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith
approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea
K. Johnstone dated August 7, 2018; deny all pending motions as
moot; and remand this case to the New Hampshire Circuit Court,
10th Circuit, District Division, Salem, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). 	The clerk of this court shall mail a certified copy of
this remand order to the clerk of that state court.
This is the second time that Judith Tompson has removed a
landlord-tenant action to this court, purporting to rely on her
counterclaims to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for
removal, only to have the landlord tenant case remanded for lack
of jurisdiction. 	See Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Tompson, No.
17-cv-699-SM, 2018 DNH 108, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86086, at *10,
2018 WL 2426638, at *4 (D.N.H. May 21, 2018) (ECF No. 15).
Tompson is cautioned that vexatious removals are sanctionable
under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and that this
Case 1:18-cv-00555-PB Document 20 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 2

2
court has discretion to require the removal defendant to
reimburse the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the
plaintiff as a result of the removal. 	See Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005); WM Capital Partners, 53
LLC (now WMPRE LLC) v. San Juan Props., 270 F. Supp. 3d 545, 547
(D.P.R. 2017). 	This court will not hesitate to sanction Tompson
if she removes another landlord-tenant action based on a
frivolous or objectively unreasonable argument that her
counterclaims provide a basis for the court to exercise its
removal jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul Barbadoro__________
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
September 27, 2018
cc: 	Michael J. Scott, Esq.
Judith Tompson, pro se
Case 1:18-cv-00555-PB Document 20 Filed 09/27/18 Page 2 of 2