Tran v. Clear Recon Corp., 3:16-cv-02318

Tran (pro se) sued Clear Recon Corp., MERS, Ocwen, and Deutsche Bank in Clackamas County Circuit Court over a loan/deed-of-trust dispute; Ocwen, Deutsche Bank, and MERS removed the case to federal court based on diversity.
Removing Defendants filed the notice of removal on December 14, 2016. Tran moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely because the last-served defendant (MERS) received service on November 10, 2016, starting the 30‑day removal clock.
Defendants contended service was inadequate under Oregon law, so the 30‑day window had not properly begun; they also initially asserted differing dates of service and later claimed deficiencies discovered after removal.
The Court applied Oregon’s Baker v. Foy two-step test: (1) whether service complied with ORCP 7 D’s presumptively adequate methods; (2) if not, whether service provided reasonable notice under ORCP 7 D(1).
The Court found Tran’s mailings (addresses derived from loan documents and communications with Ocwen), signed certified‑mail return receipts, and defendants’ actual receipt of documents showed service was reasonably calculated to give notice; MERS was served on November 10, 2016.
Because removal was filed after the 30‑day period expired, the Court remanded to state court; it denied Tran’s request for fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to remove.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal	Tran: last‑served defendant (MERS) received service 11/10/2016; removal due by 12/12/2016; notice filed 12/14 so untimely	Removing Defs: service was legally inadequate under ORCP and state law, so 30‑day window never began	Held: Service was reasonably calculated to give notice; MERS served 11/10/2016; removal filed late and untimely, so remand granted
Adequacy of service under Oregon law	Tran: mailed to addresses shown in loan documents/Ocwen communications and obtained signed return receipts; mail constituted adequate service	Defs: service improper (e.g., not to registered agent; served by party rather than nonparty), and deficiencies discovered later	Held: Under Baker v. Foy and the totality of circumstances (addresses, return receipts, actual notice), service was adequate and provided reasonable notice
Consent to removal by co‑defendants	Tran: CRC did not properly consent to removal	Defs: CRC stated consent in removal and later filed affirmative consent; answering in state court doesn’t waive right to consent	Held: CRC consented; filing an answer in state court did not waive removal rights
Fees and costs for improper removal	Tran: requests $5,000 in fees and costs for opposing removal	Defs: removal based on diversity was objectively reasonable	Held: Denied; removal, though untimely, was not so unreasonable to warrant fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Martin v. Franklin

Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (service/summons triggers removal clock)
Baker v. Foy, 310 Or. 221 (Oregon two‑step test for adequacy of service under ORCP 7)
Lee v. City of Beaumont, 12 F.3d 933 (sufficiency of service before removal is a state‑law issue)
Oltremari by McDaniel v. Kan. Soc. & Rehab. Serv., 871 F. Supp. 1331 (courts may overlook technical service defects when defendant had actual notice and plaintiff is pro se)
Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (untimely removal is defeated by a timely objection; courts have limited discretion to retain jurisdiction)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (attorney fees under § 1447(c) require lack of objectively reasonable basis for removal)