Clayville et al v. Wells et al

Filing 4

Order Remanding Case to State Court Closing Case. Motions terminated: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Maurice Symonette. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 8/29/2024. See attached document for full details. (pc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-cv-23310-ALTMAN
ANA CLAYVILLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MACK WELLS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
This is a negligence suit that doesn’t belong in federal court. Our Plaintiffs—Ana Clayville (on
behalf of herself and the estate of her son, Cody Clayville) and Beau Clayville—first filed this
wrongful-death action in Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit on March 20, 2023. 1 See Initial State-Court
Complaint [State Docket Entry “D.E.” No. 2]. After roughly one year of litigation, the Plaintiffs filed
their (now operative) Amended State-Court Complaint [State D.E. No. 53] on July 16, 2024. See also
July 18, 2024, Order Granting Motion for Leave and Deeming Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
as Filed with the Court [State D.E. No. 55]. Shortly thereafter, two individuals—Mack Wells and
Maurice Symonette—who seem to be associated with one or more of the state-court Defendants but
who are not state-court Defendants themselves, filed a Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] here. 2 We
don’t know what to make of this stream-of-consciousness filing (which spans 29 typed pages), but we
This is case number 2023-007767-CA-01, and the filings are publicly available at
www2.miamidadeclerk.gov.
2
Wells and Symonette did not even list the actual state-court Defendants—Boss Group Ministries,
Inc.; Da Blaze Media Group, LLC; and U.S. Bank National Association—as parties on the Notice of
Removal. See Notice of Removal at 1. And, unsurprisingly, none of the attorneys for the three statecourt Defendants signed the Notice of Removal. See id. at 28. That none of the actual Defendants
have joined in this supposed “removal” is reason enough for us to remand. See Bailey v. Janssen Pharm.,
Inc., 536 F.3d 1202, 1207 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The unanimity rule requires that all defendants consent to
and join a notice of removal in order for it to be effective.).
1

do know that we don’t have subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying state action. Accordingly,
we sua sponte REMAND this case to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County.
THE LAW
“A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into
jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys.
R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). It is, in fact, the Court’s
responsibility to “zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d
1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
“Because removal is only permissible when [the] plaintiff’s claim could have been filed in
federal court originally, we must look to [the] plaintiff’s claim to determine whether removal was
appropriate.” Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). “A defendant may not
generally remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case arises
under federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207–08 (2004) (emphasis in original)
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10
(1983)). “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.” Bank of N.Y. v. Angley, 559 F. App’x
956, 957 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831
(2002) (“It follows that a counterclaim—which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as a
part of the plaintiff’s complaint—cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.”); Ervast v.
Flexible Prods. Co., 346 F.3d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[U]nless the face of a plaintiff’s complaint
states a federal question, a defendant may not remove a case to federal court on this basis, even though
a possible defense might involve a federal question.”).

2

“[A] district court can remand a removed case back to state court only if it determines that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or if a party moves to remand the case because of a defect in the
removal process.” Ficus Villas Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Hardford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co., 832 F.
App’x 695, 695 (11th Cir. 2020).
The Defendants are proceeding pro se. A “pro se [filing], however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007); cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(f) (“All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.”).
Still, while we treat pro se litigants with some leniency, “this leniency does not give a court license to
serve as de facto counsel for a party or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action.” Schwarz v. Ga. Composite Med. Bd., 2021 WL 4519893, at *2 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting GJR Inv.,
Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).
ANALYSIS
We lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. “There are two bases of federal court
subject matter jurisdiction: One, diversity jurisdiction,” and “[t]he other, federal question
jurisdiction[.]” Blankenship v. Claus, 149 F. App’x 897, 898 (11th Cir. 2005). Federal-question
jurisdiction—as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1331—doesn’t exist here because this is a negligence
action governed by Florida—not federal—law. See Ct. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, 591
F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009) (“As a general rule, a case arises under federal law only if it is federal
law that creates the cause of action.” (quoting Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir.1996));
see also Amended State-Court Complaint ¶¶ 25–75 (asserting three causes of action—negligence against
Boss Group Ministries, Inc. (Count I), negligence against Da Blaze Media Group, LLC (Count II),
and negligence against U.S. Bank National Association “as trustee for residential asset securities
corporation” (Count III)—and nowhere identifying any governing federal law). And we don’t have
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the Decedent and the Defendants Boss Group
3

Ministries and Da Blaze Media Group, LLC, all appear to have Florida citizenship. See Initial StateCourt Complaint ¶ 11 (noting that, at “all times material to this action, the Decedent was a resident
of Miami-Dade County, Florida); Amended State-Court Complaint ¶ 6 (noting that the Defendants
Boss Group Ministries and Da Blaze Media Group, LLC are “Florida business entities”); see also Moore
v. N. A. Sports, Inc., 623 F.3d 1325, 1327 n.2 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Where an estate is a party, . . . the
citizenship that counts for diversity purposes in that of the decedent.”); North v. Precision Airmotive
Corp., 600 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1266 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2009) (Presnell, J.) (“[I]n the context of
determining diversity jurisdiction, federal courts have concluded that, under Florida law, only the
personal representative of the decedent’s estate may bring claims on behalf of the survivors and that
the citizenship of the survivors is irrelevant in determining diversity.”). And, because “[d]iversity
jurisdiction requires complete diversity between named plaintiffs and defendants,” Sweet Pea Marine,
Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005), we cannot exercise that jurisdiction here.
Against all this, Symonette and Wells say only the following:
Comes now Mack Wells and Minister Dr. Maurice Symonette with this Notice of
Removal because U.S. Bank N.A. has been added to a lawsuit that Boss Group
Ministries Maurice Symonette and Mack Wells are being sued in with U.S. Bank N.A.
U.S Bank N.A. is a National Association Bank and the Federal Court Federal Reserve
Act Sec. 25 B says National Association Banks cannot be sued in state court it must
be done in Federal Court and Boss Group Ministry Inc. is a 501(c)(3) Federal Tax
Exempt Corporation that is Federal and must be sued in Federal Court and this Case
has the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 discrimination which is all Federal.
Notice of Removal at 1–2. Three problems with this. First, Section 25(B) of the Federal Reserve Act—
which has been codified at 12 U.S.C. § 632—doesn’t apply here because this isn’t a suit about foreign
banking business or federal reserve banks. Second, that the Defendant, Boss Group Ministry, Inc., is a
501(c)(3) entity doesn’t answer the separate question we face here—which is whether we have subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear the case. Third, we see no mention of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 42
U.S.C. § 1983 anywhere in the Amended State-Court Complaint, and “[t]he presence or absence of
federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that
4

federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's
properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
***
Accordingly, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE that this case is REMANDED to the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. The Clerk of Court shall
CLOSE this case. All hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED, and all other pending motions
are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 29, 2024.

_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

counsel of record
Ana Clayville, pro se
Beau Clayville, pro se
Mack Wells, pro se
Maurice Symonette, pro se

5