Uptown Lofts at Altamonte Ltd. v. Courter

Filing 7

ORDERED that the Clerk is DIRECTED to remand this case to the County Court for Seminole County, Florida. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 6/11/2014. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UPTOWN LOFTS AT ALTAMONTE
LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:14-cv-891-Orl-37TBS

MONIQUE COURTER,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court for jurisdictional review. On June 9, 2014, Pro Se
Defendant Monique Courter removed this eviction action from the County Court of
Seminole County, Florida, on the grounds that this Court has federal question
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim because Defendant is a member of a “protected class”
under the Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 1, p.3.) The factual allegations of the Notice and
Complaint do not support federal question jurisdiction.
A defendant may remove a case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 if
a basis exists for this federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant
must prove the jurisdictional requirements for removal by a preponderance of the
evidence, see Leonard v. Enter. Rent A Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002), and all
uncertainties concerning removal jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand. Russell
Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). When a case
is removed, this Court has an obligation to examine its own jurisdiction sua sponte. See
Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
If the face of the complaint does not state a federal question, the defendant may
not remove the case to federal court simply because “a possible defense might involve
a federal question.” See Ervast v. Flexible Prods. Co., 346 F.3d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir.
2003); see also Bank of N.Y. v. Angley, No. 13-11208, 2014 WL 1259617, at *1 (11th
Cir. Mar. 28, 2014)( “There can be no federal question jurisdiction or removal based on
an argument raised by the defense, whether that argument is a defense or a
counterclaim.”). Here, the Complaint filed by Uptown Lofts at Altamonte Ltd. includes no
allegations even suggesting the existence of a federal question. (See Doc. 1.)
Defendant’s contention that she is a member of a protected class is, at best, related to a
possible counterclaim or defense. Because the face of the Complaint does not support
federal question jurisdiction, remand is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Mortg.
Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Malugen, No. 6:11-cv-2033, 2012 WL 1382265, at *8
(M.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2012) (remanding foreclosure action to state court).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk is
DIRECTED to remand this case to the County Court for Seminole County, Florida, to
terminate all pending motions, and to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on June 11, 2014.

2

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Defendant
The Clerk of Court for the County Court of
Seminole County, Florida

3