Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Steven Thomason
24-13965
| 11th Cir. | Aug 29, 2025Background
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company sought to eject Steven Clayton Thomason from a foreclosed property in Alabama, filing suit in state court.
- Thomason and his daughters twice attempted to remove the ejectment action to federal court, citing FDIC involvement, civil rights claims, and military party defenses.
- The district court remanded the case as untimely and lacking subject matter jurisdiction, ultimately sanctioning Thomason and his attorney for vexatious litigation.
- Thomason appealed, arguing the removal was proper under various federal statutes and challenging the district court’s jurisdiction, impartiality, and imposition of sanctions.
- The district court also enjoined Thomason from further filings on the matter due to repeated, baseless removal attempts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal to federal court was proper | Removal proper due to FDIC involvement, civil rights, and military party | No federal subject matter jurisdiction, FDIC not a party | Removal improper; remand affirmed |
| Whether Thomason’s removal was timely | Filed removal within 30 days of claim against FDIC | Removal over a year late; no new event triggering new period | Untimely; removal denied |
| Whether the district judge should have recused herself | Judge showed bias due to past statements and connections | No evidence of bias warranting recusal | No grounds for recusal; no error |
| Appellate jurisdiction over district court’s sanction orders | District court abused discretion by imposing sanctions | Sanctions outside scope of notice of appeal | No appellate jurisdiction over sanctions orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019) (Removal jurisdiction cannot be based on counterclaims; only initial pleadings matter)
- Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp., 408 F.3d 773 (11th Cir. 2005) (Federal courts have jurisdiction over actions involving the FDIC under certain circumstances)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (Issues not clearly raised in briefs are abandoned)
- United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004) (Recusal standard is objective: significant doubt about impartiality)