Federal National Mortgage Association v. Perez et al

Filing 9

ORDER: This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 11/17/2014. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 6:14-cv-1785-Orl-37KRS
LEONARDO PEREZ; UNKNOWN
SPOUSE OF LEONARDO PEREZ;
LISA M. PEREZ; IF LIVING,
INCLUDING ANY UNKNOWN SPOUSE
OF SAID DEFENDANT(S), IF
REMARRIED, AND IF DECEASED,
THE RESPECTIVE UNKNOWN HEIRS,
DEVISEES, GRANTEES, ASSIGNEES,
CREDITORS, LIENORS, AND
TRUSTEES; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.; STATE OF FLORIDA;
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF
COURTS; STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE;
SWEETWATER WEST
HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC.;
WHETHER DISOLVED [sic] 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.

ORDER
This cause is before the Court sua sponte. On November 3, 2014, Defendant
Leonardo Perez removed this mortgage foreclosure action from state court alleging that
the Court has jurisdiction because Plaintiff violated “numerous federal law [sic] and
statutes.” (See Doc.1, pp. 1–3.) On November 10, 2014, Defendant filed an Amended
Brief to his Notice of Removal which incorporated his Complaint Against Third Party and
Counter-Complaint Against Plaintiff. (See Doc. 8.) Upon consideration, the Court finds
that this case was improvidently removed and is due to be remanded.
The Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) and the Amended Brief (Doc. 8) are devoid of
allegations to show that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant has not
alleged diversity jurisdiction because he failed to identify the citizenship of the parties as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Additionally, Defendant failed to invoke the Court’s federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant claims that Plaintiff violated, inter
alia, the following laws and regulations: (1) 12 U.S.C. § 3708; (2) “Implementing
Regulation, § 1.1-1”; (3) 24 C.F.R. § 220.814; (4) 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 134; and
(5) 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1, p. 2; Doc. 8, p. 3.) However, these assertions are not
relevant to the Court’s inquiry. It is the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint, not the
defenses or counterclaims raised by Defendant, that determine whether a case “arises
under” federal law for purposes of § 1331. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60
(2009). All of the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are based on state law. (See Doc. 2.) Thus,
the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in

2

and for Orange County.
2.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate pending motions and close this case
file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on November 17, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3