Fremont Investment & Loan Company v. Bedasee et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER remanding the case to the Collier County Circuit Court. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this Opinion and Order to the clerk of that court, terminate all pending matters, and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/7/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
FREMONT INVESTMENT
COMPANY,

&

LOAN

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-129-FtM-99MRM

SANDIE
BEDASEE,
OWEN
BADESEE, MORTGAGE ELECTRIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
as
nominee
for
Fremont
Investment & Loan, whether
dissolved
or
presently
existing, together with any
grantees,
assignees,
creditors,
lienors,
or
trustees
of
said
defendant(s) and all other
persons
claiming
by,
through, under, or against
defendant(s), UNKNOWN TENANT
#1, and UNKNOWN TENANT #2,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendant pro
se

Sandie

Bedasee’s

Notice

of

Removal

(Doc.

#1)

and

Fremont

Investment and Loan Company’s Complaint for Foreclosure (Doc. #2)
filed on March 2, 2017.

For the reasons set forth below, this

cause is remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
I.
This

is

defendants’

fourth

attempt

to

remove

underlying foreclosure complaint to this Court.

the

same

See Fremont

Investment & Loan Co. v. Bedasee et al., 2:15-cv-268-38MRM; 2:15cv-501-29MRM; 2:16-cv-470-38MRM.

In each instance, the cause was

remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
due in part to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1

Rooker v. Fid. Tr.

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

Owen and Sandie Bedasee are also

plaintiffs in two cases against Fremont Investment & Loan Co.

See

Bedasee v. Fremont Investment & Loan et al., 2:09-cv-111-29SPC;
2:16-cv-145-29MRM.
Briefly 2, the underlying foreclosure complaint was originally
filed in Collier County Circuit Court on February 22, 2008, seeking
to foreclose on a $444,000 purchase money mortgage on real property
located in Naples, Florida.
or

about

September

1,

(Doc. #2.)

2007,

with

Defendants defaulted on
a

remaining

balance

$433,462.15, plus interest, late charges, and expenses.
#2.)

of

(Doc.

On April 16, 2008, summary judgment was granted in the amount

of $461,863.99, plus attorney’s fees.

On June 13, 2008, a Final

Judgment

on

of

Foreclosure

was

entered

the

docket,

and

the

1

Owen and Sandie Bedasee have also attempted to remove
another foreclosure complaint filed by National City Bank to this
Court on two occasions. See National City Bank v. Bedasee et al.,
2:16-cv-555-29MRM; 2:17-cv-31-99CM. Both cases were remanded to
state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2

The procedural history is otherwise set forth in Fremont
Investment & Loan Co. v. Bedasee et al., 2:15-cv-501-29MRM.

- 2 -

foreclosure was scheduled.

The sale was cancelled and rescheduled

numerous times upon motion by plaintiff, and on November 17, 2008,
defendant

Sandie

Bedasee

filed

prompting a further cancellation.

a

Suggestion

of

Bankruptcy

The Bankruptcy Court lifted the

automatic stay for purposes of proceeding against the property,
and the foreclosure sale was once again rescheduled, and reset
several times.

The foreclosure sale finally took place on June

10, 2009, and plaintiff filed a Certificate of Sale on the same
day.

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.)
II.

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).

- 3 -

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).
III.
As the Court set forth in its prior Orders in the previous
removal

cases

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.

See Fremont Investment, 2:15-cv-268-38MRM (Doc. #13);

2:15-cv-501-29MRM (Doc. #14); 2:16-cv-470-38MRM (Doc. #8).

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.

- 4 -

Defendants have been on notice that the Court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over these cases for years but continue to
remove them, requiring both the Court, and in some instances other
parties,

to

incur

attorney’s

fees

and

costs

as

a

result.

Defendants are forewarned that in the future, any order remanding
the case based upon the same underlying foreclosure complaints may
impose payment of costs and expenses incurred as a result of the
wrongful removal, including attorney’s fees.

See 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c).
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
March, 2017.

Copies:
Defendants
Counsel of Record

- 5 -

7th

day of