Platinum Property Management Services, LLC v. West-Pryor
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 4 Final Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/24/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
PLATINUM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC,
as next friend of STEVEN M. LONG
and as next friend of CONNIE J.
LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-2846-WSD
TIFFANY M. WEST-PRYOR and
all others,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s
Final Report and Recommendation [4] (“R&R”), which recommends remanding to
state court this dispossessory action that Defendant Tiffany M. West-Pryor
(“Defendant”) wrongfully removed to this Court.
I.
BACKGROUND
This is a dispossessory action filed by Plaintiff Platinum Property
Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant in the Magistrate Court of
Gwinnett County, Georgia. On August 26, 2013, Defendant removed the case to
this Court by filing her “Petition for Removal of Action” and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Defendant asserts that, in
attempting to evict Defendant from her home, Plaintiff violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On August 28, 2013, Magistrate Judge Baverman issued his R&R
recommending that the Court remand this case to state court. The R&R concludes
that diversity jurisdiction is lacking because, as this case is a dispossessory action,
Plaintiff cannot establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The
R&R further notes that there is no indication that the parties have diverse
citizenship. The R&R also concludes that federal question jurisdiction is lacking
because there is no indication that this case is brought pursuant to federal law, and
a defense or counterclaim based on federal law is insufficient to confer federal
subject-matter jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
there is no federal jurisdiction over this cause of action and that the case is required
to be remanded to state court.
Defendant has not filed objections to the R&R and does not appear to
oppose the remand of this case.
2
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With
respect to those findings and recommendations to which objections have not been
asserted, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States
v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
B.
Analysis
The Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that the Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction over this matter because Defendant has not demonstrated that the
amount in controversy exceeds the statutory threshold of $75,000. “[A]
dispossessory proceeding under Georgia law is not an ownership dispute, but
rather only a dispute over the limited right to possession, title to property is not at
issue and, accordingly, the removing Defendant may not rely on the value of the
property as a whole to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.” Fed. Home
3
Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Williams, Nos. 1:07-cv-2864-RWS, 1:07-cv-2865-RWS,
2008 WL 115096, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan 29, 2008); see also Citimortgage, Inc. v.
Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1382 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (“[T]his court has held that
as a matter of law, a claim seeking only ejectment in a dispossessory action cannot
be reduced to a monetary sum for the purposes of determining the amount in
controversy.”); Novastar Mortg., Inc. v. Bennett, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1361 (N.D.
Ga. 2001), aff’d, 35 F. App’x 858 (11th Cir. 2002). An owner who has lost his
home to foreclosure has an emotional and sentimental investment in his home that
cannot be calculated. Defendant, however, cannot allege the perceived benefit in
her residence exceeds $75,000.00 and thus, is unable to meet the jurisdictional
amount required to support the Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction. See Best
Buy Co., 269 F.3d at 1319; Citimortgage, 705 F. Supp. 2d at 1382; Novastar
Mortg., 173 F. Supp. 2d at 1361-62.
The Court also agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that the Court lacks
federal question jurisdiction over this matter. It is well-settled that federalquestion jurisdiction only exists when a federal question is presented on the face of
a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint and that the assertions of defenses or
counterclaims based on federal law cannot confer federal subject matter
jurisdiction over a cause of action. See Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539
4
U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.,
535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002).
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the
Court adopts the recommendation to remand this case to the state court.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s
Final Report and Recommendation [4] is ADOPTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to REMAND this action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2013.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?