COOLING TOWERS SYSTEMS INC et al v. MALPHURS et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING 5 Motion to Remand; DENYING as moot 8 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Bibb County. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/30/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
COOLING TOWERS SYSTEMS, INC.
and JOE COATES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VICTORIA REGINA HADLEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-76 (MTT)

ORDER
Plaintiffs Cooling Towers Systems, Inc. and Joe Coates, have moved to remand
this case to the Superior Court of Bibb County, arguing that this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. Doc. 5.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove “any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.” Federal question original
jurisdiction exists if the dispute “arise[s] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The party seeking removal bears the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752
(11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Any uncertainties should be resolved in favor of
remand. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (citations
omitted) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Burnett v. Regions Bank,
2016 WL 1644182 (M.D. Fla. 2016).

On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs brought claims for conspiracy, fraud, conversion,
financial transaction fraud, theft by deception, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract, abusive litigation, and fraud on the court against the Defendants in the
Superior Court of Bibb County. See generally Doc. 1-2. Defendant Amanda Malphurs
removed to this Court, claiming that the Court has original jurisdiction over the action
because:
(a) [T]hese claims depend on the resolution of a substantial
and controlling federal question as an essential element of
their claims for relief, i.e., whether the jury’s findings and the
subsequent judgment in Malphurs v. Cooling Tower Systems
Inc. and Joe Coates, 5:13-cv-443-MTT (U.S.D.C. – M.D. Ga.
June 10, 2016)—after nearly three years of litigation, a trial,
and an appeal in federal court—were the result of fraud; (b)
defendant Malphurs will prevail based on the effect that Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60—which governs post-trial claims that a
judgment was the result of fraud—has on plaintiffs’ claims in
this action; and (c) the federal issue here regarding the
validity of a prior federal judgment between the same parties
is a substantial and serious one that must be resolved in a
federal forum.
Doc. 1 ¶ 10. Malphurs continued that the “Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
[P]laintiffs’ Georgia state-law claims against defendant Malphurs regarding defendant
Victoria Regina Hadley . . . as those claims are ‘so related’ to [the P]laintiffs’ federal-law
claims that ‘they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution.’” Id. ¶ 11 (citation omitted). Defendant Victoria Regina Hadley
consented to the removal. Doc. 1-3.
The Plaintiffs move to remand because “this case is not subject to this Court’s
original jurisdiction,” and “they have decided to and intend to dismiss this action but . . .
may not do so because of the removal . . . because this Court does not have
jurisdiction.” Doc. 5 ¶ 3-6. Indeed, the fact that the Plaintiffs’ claims relate to a case this
-2-

Court heard does not mean that those claims “depend on the resolution of a substantial
and controlling federal question as an essential element of their claims for relief.” Doc.
1 ¶ 10. Further, Defendant Malphurs, whose appearance in the previous federal action
supplied the alleged federal question, has been dismissed from this case. Doc. 7.
Accordingly, even if the Defendants’ theory of original jurisdiction were correct, it
appears to no longer be operative. Because it is not facially apparent from the
complaint that the case implicates a federal question, the Defendants must otherwise
prove that it does. But the Defendants have not responded to the motion or otherwise
shown that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case.
Accordingly, the Defendants have not shown that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction to hear this case, and the Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Bibb County. The Plaintiffs’
motion to withdraw as attorney (Doc. 8) is accordingly DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of April, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-