SFRH Tampa Holding LP v. Harris et al

Filing 5

ORDER remanding the action and directing the Clerk to MAIL a certified copy of this order to the state court, to TERMINATE any pending motion, and to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 10/13/2015. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SFRH TAMPA HOLDING LP,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:15-cv-2349-T-23AEP

MELODY HARRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER
SFRH Tampa Holding LP sued (Doc. 2) in state court to evict Melody Harris
and Charles Castleberry for failure to pay rent. Removing (Doc. 1) the action, Harris
argues that the plaintiff “has actually filed a Federal Question Action” because the
defendants “are members of a protected class” under “the Civil Rights Act of 1968.”
(Doc. 1 at 2, 3) Harris states that she “had no problems with the prior management
company but with the new company, Defendant feels she is being dealt with in a
prejudicial way.” (Doc. 1 at 2)
Ordinarily, a “case does not arise under federal law unless a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.” Kemp v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
109 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). The complaint, which seeks to
evict tenants under state law, presents no issue of federal law. (See Doc. 2) An
“exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule exists, however, in 28 U.S.C. § 1443

for certain civil rights actions.”* Rogers v. Rucker, 835 F. Supp. 1410, 1412 (N.D. Ga.
1993) (O’Kelley, J.). To remove under Section 1443(1), a defendant “must
demonstrate both . . . that he is being deprived of rights guaranteed by a federal law
providing for . . . equal civil rights; and . . . that he is denied or cannot enforce that
right in the courts of the state.” TCIF REO CIT, LLC v. Gray, 346 Fed. Appx. 763,
766 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).
As the removing defendant, Harris fails to bear her “burden of proving proper
federal jurisdiction.” Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1294
(11th Cir. 2008). Although Harris “feels she is being dealt with in a prejudicial way”
(Doc. 1 at 2), Harris fails to explain (1) how SFRH Tampa Holding LP deprived
Harris of her civil rights and (2) why Harris cannot enforce her rights in state court.
Thus, Section 1443(1) provides no basis for removal.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED for failure of the
removing party to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Kam Hon, Inc. v. Cigna Fire
Underwriters Ins. Co., 933 F. Supp. 1060, 1062 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (Conway, J.) (“A
district court clearly has the power to sua sponte remand a case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.”). The clerk is directed (1) to mail, as required by Section

*

Section 1443(1) states:
Any of the following civil actions . . . commenced in a State court may be
removed . . . :
. . . Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of
such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of
citizens of the United States.

-2-

1447(c), a certified copy of this order to the clerk of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court
in Pinellas County, Florida, (2) to terminate any pending motion, and (3) to close the
case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 13, 2015.

-3-