National City Bank v. Bedasee et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER remanding case to the Collier County, Florida Circuit Court, and the Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this Opinion and Order to the Clerk of that court, and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/2/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
NATIONAL CITY BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-31-FtM-99CM

OWEN
BEDASEE,
SANDIE
BEDASEE,
FIRST
FRANKLIN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JOHN
DOE, and JANE DOE,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendants
pro se Owen and Sandie Bedasee’s Notice of Removal (Doc. #1) and
National City Bank’s Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage and for
Damages (Doc. #2) filed on January 18, 2017.

For the reasons set

forth below, this cause is remanded for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
I.
This

is

defendants’

second

attempt

to

remove

the

same

underlying foreclosure complaint to this Court.

See National City

Bank v. Bedasee et al., 2:16-cv-555-29MRM.

This foreclosure

action was initially filed by National City Bank in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County
on March 24, 2008.

(Doc. #2.)

The Final Judgment of Foreclosure

was entered on August 12, 2014, and confirmed by the Second
District Court of Appeals.

Defendants state in the Notice of

Removal that they seek to test the constitutionality of the current
Florida statutory scheme governing foreclosures.

(Doc. #1 at 2.)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “a court
should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at
the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well
settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”

Univ.

S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409, 410 (11th Cir.
1999) (citations omitted).

“A removing defendant bears the burden

of proving proper federal jurisdiction. . . . Any doubts about the
propriety of federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of
remand to state court.”

Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg,

552 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008).
Removal jurisdiction exists only where the district court
would have had 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).

As the party seeking federal jurisdiction, the burden

is upon defendant to establish jurisdiction as of the date of
removal.

Sammie Bonner Constr. Co. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc.,

330 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2003); Williams v. Best Buy Co.,
269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).

II.

- 2 -

As the Court set forth in its Opinion and Order in the
previous removal case based upon the same underlying complaint for
foreclosure, the sole relief sought in the underlying complaint
has been granted, rejected, or otherwise concluded in the state
court, and cannot now be re-litigated or revisited in federal
court.

National City Bank, 2:16-cv-555-29MRM (Doc. #22) (M.D.

Fla. Aug. 26, 2016).

A federal district court does not sit as an

appellate court of state cases.

See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263

U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983).

The Court finds that it continues to lack

subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

No new basis for

federal jurisdiction has been presented in the Notice of Removal.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Court REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court of the

Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Opinion
and Order to the Clerk of that court.
2.

The Clerk is further directed to terminate all pending

motions and deadline and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
February, 2017.

- 3 -

2nd

day of

Copies:
Defendants
Counsel of Record

- 4 -