Owens et al v. Moreland
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER granting 5 Unopposed Motion to Remand to State Court; denying 7 Petition for Removal; denying 10 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. The Clerk shall remand the three cases to the three se parate state courts and transmit a certified copy of this Order to those courts, terminate all pending matters, and close the file. Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees is granted and a motion shall be filed within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/11/2015. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANDREW OWENS, KAREN RUSHING,
EARL MORELAND, and KENNETH
TUCKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-80-FtM-29DNF
GARY VANCE MORELAND,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
on
the
plaintiffs’
Partially Unopposed Motion to Remand (Doc. #5) filed on March 10,
2015.
No response has been filed and the time to respond has
expired.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to remand is
granted.
Plaintiffs
filed
three
actions
in
state
court
against
defendant Gary Moreland (Moreland): 1) Owens, et. al., v. Moreland,
Case No. 2013 CA 7755 (Sarasota County); 2) Owens et al., v.
Moreland, et al., Case No. 2014 CA 566 (Charlotte County); 3) Owens
et al., v. Moreland, et al., Case No. 2014 CA 664 (Leon County).
Each action sought injunctive and declaratory relief to obtain the
expungement
of
allegedly
fraudulent
against each plaintiffs’ properties.
liens
Moreland
had
filed
Plaintiffs served Moreland
with the Sarasota County Complaint on April 13, 2014 (Doc. #5-1,
p. 17), the Charlotte County Complaint on October 29, 2014 (Doc.
#5-2, p. 13), and the Leon County Complaint on December 22, 2014
(Doc. #5-3, p. 18).
Defendant’s Notice of Removal Actions of Related Cases and
its Certificate of Service (Doc. #1) were signed by defendant on
January 4, 2015, while he was incarcerated, but was not filed with
the Court until February 9, 2015.
Since the Notice of Removal
refers to documents filed on January 26, 2015, it appears the
signature date is incorrect. 1
Defendant also filed a Petition for
Removal of Cases to the U.S. District Court (Doc. #7) and a
supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. #8) on March 12, 2015.
Plaintiffs now seek to have the three cases remanded to their
respective state courts for both jurisdictional and procedural
reasons.
While there are multiple procedural problems which would
require remand, the fundamental problem which requires remand is
that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over any of
the three state cases. 2
1The
Court will assume that a prisoner delivered a filing to
prison authorities on the date that he signed it absent evidence
to the contrary. Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314
(11th Cir. 2014).
2If
the Court determines “at any time” that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case.
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
2
Removal jurisdiction exists only where the district court
would have original jurisdiction over the action, unless Congress
expressly provides otherwise.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Darden v. Ford
Consumer Fin. Co., Inc., 200 F.3d 753, 755 (11th Cir. 2000).
a
motion
to
remand,
the
party
seeking
to
invoke
On
federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the jurisdiction of
the federal court.
Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d
1284, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 1998); Pacheco De Perez v. AT & T Co.,
139 F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir. 1998); Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d
1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1162 (1997).
Thus, the burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction in
this case is upon defendant.
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is
governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that
federal
jurisdiction
presented
on
complaint.”
(1987).
the
exists
face
of
only
the
when
a
federal
plaintiff's
question
properly
is
pleaded
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
Defendant’s right to remove a case is determined by
examining the allegations in the complaint at the time defendant
files the notice of removal.
U.S. 200, 206-08 (1993).
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508
There is no federal question claim set
forth in any of the Complaints filed in the state court cases.
All three state court Complaints allege claims for declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief to expunge allegedly fraudulent
3
liens.
(See Docs. ## 5-1, 5-2, 5-3.)
The causes of actions were
not created by federal law, and there is no substantial federal
issue which is necessarily raised, actually disputed and capable
of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federalstate balance approved by Congress.
Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct.
1059, 1065 (2013).
Defendant states, however, that all three cases are directly
related and arise under 31 U.S.C. §§ 462, 463 (Doc. #1, ¶ 2; Doc.
#7, ¶ 1), and makes reference to a state court counterclaim raising
federal issues (Doc. #7, ¶ 4.)
for
federal
jurisdiction.
statutes in Title 31.
Neither argument provides a basis
First,
there
are
no
such
federal
Even if there were, a federal claim raised
in a counterclaim will not provide a basis for removal.
Holmes
Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826
(2002); Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009).
Because there
is no proper basis upon which these cases could have been removed
to federal court, they must each be remanded to the state courts
from which they came.
Plaintiffs also requests costs and reasonable attorney’s fees
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
(Doc. #5, p. 10.)
"An order
remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual
expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the
removal."
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The award of costs and expenses,
including attorney fees, is not automatic, but is appropriate in
4
the discretion of the court when such an award is just.
Martin v.
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139-41 (2005). Here, removal
of all three state cases was unreasonable from the beginning.
There was no federal claim or any arguable basis for a federal
issue raised in any of the three complaints, and there could be no
removal based upon a counterclaim even if the federal statutes
cited by defendant actually existed.
The Court, in the exercise
of its discretion, grants plaintiffs’ request for an award of
attorney fees.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Partially Unopposed Motion to Remand (Doc. #5)
is GRANTED.
2. Defendant’s Petition for Removal of Cases to the U.S.
District Court (Doc. #7) is DENIED, and therefore the Affidavit of
Indigency (Doc. #10), construed as a request to proceed in forma
pauperis, is DENIED.
3. The Clerk is directed to:
a. Remand the Sarasota County Case (2013 CA 7755) to the
Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for
Sarasota County, Florida and transmit a certified copy of
this Order to the Clerk of that Court.
b. Remand the Charlotte County Case (2014 CA 566) to the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for
5
Charlotte County, Florida and transmit a certified copy of
this Order to the Clerk of that Court.
c.
Remand the Leon County Case (2014 CA 664) to the
Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida and
transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that
Court.
4. Plaintiffs’
request
for
attorney
fees
is
GRANTED.
Plaintiffs shall file a motion for attorney fees with supporting
documentation within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the filing of this
Opinion and Order. Defendant shall file a response within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after that filing.
5. The Clerk is further directed to terminate all other
pending motions as moot and close the file.
The Court retains
jurisdiction only as to the motion for attorney fees and costs.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
May, 2015.
SA: FTMP-2
Copies: Counsel of record
6
11th
day of
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?