Edwards v. Roberson
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama; that the Clerk is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 8/5/2010. (cc, ) Certified copy sent to Circuit Court Clerk for Russell County.
Edwards v. Roberson
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION D R . KENNETH G. EDWARDS, P L A IN T IF F , v. R O B E R T L. ROBERSON, D EFEN D A N T. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 3:10cv647-MEF (W O - Do Not Publish)
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER A federal court is a court of limited of jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 5 1 1 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). That is, a federal court is authorized to entertain only certain a c tio n s which the Constitution or Congress has authorized it to hear. Id. "It is to be p re s u m e d that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, ..., and the burden of establishing th e contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction,...." Id. (citations omitted). At any tim e , the Court may review sua sponte whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over a n action before it. See, e.g., Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409-11 (1 1 th Cir.1999) (outlining a federal court's duty to sua sponte consider its own subject matter ju ris d ic tio n ); Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (s a m e ); Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Evans, 76 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259 (N.D. Ala. 1999) (" [ A ] federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte w h e n e v e r it may be lacking."); see also Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites d e Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 704 (1982).
Plaintiff filed suit in the Small Claims Court of Russell County, Alabama. Plaintiff s o u g h t $4,730.00 for medical services rendered by Plaintiff and court costs in the some of $ 2 3 5 .0 0 . Defendant filed an Answer and a Counterclaim while the case was pending in R u s s e ll County. Defendant alleged a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and v a rio u s tort claims under Alabama law. After filing this Counterclaim, Defendant removed the case to this Court invoking its s u b je c t matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. It is clear, however, from th e Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1) that Defendant's assertions relating to the existence of s u b je c t matter jurisdiction are predicated, not on the face of the Complaint, but on the claims a s s e rte d in the Counterclaim.1 T h e Court has examined the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. There a re no federal claims presented in that pleading which would raise a question of federal law. The Court has also examined the well-pleaded allegations of plaintiff's Complaint to
Federal subject matter jurisdiction can not rest upon an actual or anticipated c o u n te rc la im . See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009); Holmes G r o u p , Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831-32 (2002). Removal ju ris d ic tio n is appropriate only if the plaintiff could have filed his original claims in federal c o u rt; to the extent that a defendant asserts he has a claim against the plaintiff grounded in f e d e ra l law or subject to diversity jurisdiction, this is not proper grounds upon which to re m o v e the original complaint. See, e.g., Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 & 3 9 9 (1987); Hunt v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725 (10th Cir. 2005) (ordering remand to state court, h o ld in g that court lacked jurisdiction over custody dispute, even if defendant sought to v in d ic a te federal civil and constitutional rights by way of defense or counterclaim); Takeda v . Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (removability cannot be created b y defendant pleading a counterclaim presenting a federal question).
determine whether diversity jurisdiction is appropriate. It is not because the amount in c o n tro v e rsy does not exceed $75,000. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction o v e r this action. Accordingly, the action must be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. T h is case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama. T h e Clerk is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand.
D O N E this the 5th day of August, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?