Robert Snyder v. Citimortgage, Incorporated
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02084-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999309822]. Mailed to: Robert Snyder. [13-2194]
Appeal: 13-2194
Doc: 15
Filed: 03/06/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2194
ROBERT A. SNYDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED; CITIFINANCIAL, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02084-JKB)
Submitted:
February 25, 2014
Decided:
March 6, 2014
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert A. Snyder, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert A. Scott, BALLARD
SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2194
Doc: 15
Filed: 03/06/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Robert A. Snyder appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to remand his quiet title action to state
court, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissing
his complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On appeal, Snyder contends
that the district court erred in denying his motion to remand
his case to the state court.
“We
jurisdiction,
removal.”
review
de
We agree.
including
novo
those
questions
relating
of
to
subject
the
matter
propriety
of
Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir. 1999).
“The burden of demonstrating jurisdiction resides with the party
seeking removal.”
Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc.,
407
(4th
F.3d
255,
omitted).
260
Cir.
2005)
(internal
quotation
marks
We “construe removal jurisdiction strictly”; thus,
“if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand to state court is
necessary.”
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
and
brackets
omitted).
Here, Defendants did not establish the existence of
diversity
jurisdiction.
Defendants
accordance
federal
Thus,
established
federal
with
courts
28
U.S.C.
“original
we
§ 1331
must
question
(2012),
jurisdiction
of
be
satisfied
that
jurisdiction,
in
which
on
all
confers
civil
actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
2
Appeal: 13-2194
Doc: 15
States.”
Filed: 03/06/2014
Pg: 3 of 4
A case may “arise under the laws of the United States
if a well-pleaded complaint established that [the plaintiff’s]
right
to
relief
substantial
parties.”
under
question
state
of
law
federal
requires
law
in
resolution
dispute
of
between
the
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,
463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).
party
a
seeking
removal
must
therefore
establish
two
The
elements:
“(1) that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on
a question of federal law, and (2) that the question of federal
law is substantial.”
Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811,
816 (4th Cir. 2004).
“A plaintiff’s right to relief for a given
claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when
every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution
of a federal issue.”
Id.; see Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic
Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 153 (4th Cir. 1994) (“[I]f a claim is
supported
matter
would
not
only
jurisdiction
not
establish
by
but
a
theory
also
such
by
establishing
an
federal
alternative
jurisdiction,
then
subject
theory
federal
which
subject
matter jurisdiction does not exist.”).
In this case, we conclude that Defendants failed to
establish the existence of federal question jurisdiction.
State
law creates Snyder’s cause of action—an action to quiet title.
Defendants point to the portion of Snyder’s complaint in which
he alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
3
Appeal: 13-2194
Doc: 15
Filed: 03/06/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, and several
other
federal
jurisdiction.
statutes,
to
support
their
claim
of
federal
Snyder does not, however, advance these alleged
violations of federal law as individual causes of action for
which he seeks relief.
Moreover, Snyder’s state law quiet title
action does not depend on a finding that Defendants violated
federal law; Snyder advances many state law arguments in support
of his claim to quiet title, any one of which, if valid, could
support his action.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand
Snyder’s
to
the
action
district
to
the
court
state
with
court.
instructions
We
dispense
to
remand
with
oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?