Perez v. Bank of America, No. EP-13-CV-285-KC, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2013)(Cardone, J.)

This opinion highlights one of the few circumstances in which proper service is pivotal. The property owners in this foreclosure litigation sued the bank, Freddie Mac, and an individual, but they acknowledged that Freddie Mac and the individual were merely nominal parties. Id. at 1-2.  Process was forwarded to the bank’s North Carolina headquarters by certified mail, but the property owners did not serve the bank’s registered agent in Texas.  Id. at 2.  The bank filed an answer in state court in which it made no objection to service, id. at 4 n.3, but later removed to federal court.  The owners argued that the case should be remanded because more than thirty days had elapsed since process was delivered to the bank’s headquarters.  Id. at 4.  But the District Court concluded that only “formal service of process” triggers the 30-day removal period.  Id. at 5 (quoting City of Clarksdale v. Bell-South Telecomms., Inc., 428 F.3d 206, 210 (5th Cir. 2005)).  The District Court also concluded that (a) Freddie Mac properly joined in the removal even though it had been formally served more than 30 days beforehand, and (b) the individual defendant’s joinder in removal was not required because he was improperly joined.  Id. at 8-10.