Twin Cribs, LLC v. Cooper
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 3 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/2/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
TWIN CRABS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-459-WSD
TERRY COOPER,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), which recommends remanding
this dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff Twin Crabs, LLC (“Plaintiff”) initiated a
dispossessory proceeding against its tenant Defendant Terry Cooper (“Defendant”)
in the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The Complaint seeks
possession of premises currently occupied by Defendant, plus past due rent, late
fees, and costs.
On February 18, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case to
this Court by filing his Notice of Removal and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) [1]. Defendant appears to assert that there is federal subjectmatter jurisdiction based on the existence of a question of federal law. He claims
in his Notice of Removal that this action violates “15 USCA 1692,” “Rule 60 of
the federal Rule of Civil Procedure [sic],” and the “14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.”
On February 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Vineyard granted Defendant’s
application to proceed IFP. Judge Vineyard also considered sua sponte the
question of federal jurisdiction and recommends that the Court remand this case to
the state court. Judge Vineyard found that Plaintiff’s underlying pleading shows
that this action is a dispossessory proceeding that does not invoke a federal
question. Noting that a federal law defense or counterclaim alone is not sufficient
to confer federal jurisdiction, Judge Vineyard concluded that the Court does not
have federal question jurisdiction over this matter.
On March 10, 2014, Defendant filed his “Objections & Responses” [5] to
the R&R in which he asserts generally that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over
this action and that the R&R violates certain provisions of the United States
Constitution.
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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). 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 a party
has not asserted objections, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the
record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
Defendant appears to object to the finding in the R&R that the Court does
not have jurisdiction over this action. Defendant does not object to the R&R’s
conclusion that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question. It is
well-settled that federal-question jurisdiction exists only 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 question
jurisdiction over a cause of action. See Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539
3
U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.,
535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002). 1 The Court does not find any plain error in the
conclusion in the R&R that there is no federal questions jurisdiction over the
allegations of the Complaint.
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
The record does not show that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different
states. The record also fails to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the
statutory threshold of $75,000. See Fed. Home 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) (“[A] dispossessory proceeding under Georgia law is not an
ownership dispute, but rather only a dispute over the limited right to possession,
1
Defendant’s general “objections” that the R&R is unconstitutional are without
merit. Defendant states that the R&R: (1) “is unconstitutional with respect to the
‘DUE PROCESS CLAUSES’ 15th Amendment & 5th Amendment’s Due Process
[sic]”; (2) “is Unconstitutional with respect to ‘Trail by Jury’ 7th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution [sic]”; and (3) “is in violation. Of the Bill Of Rights with
respect to a trail before Tribunal Court [sic].” These objections are not
comprehensible and are not valid. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548
(11th Cir. 1988) (“Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and
recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.”);
see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“It is
critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the
report.”). These objections are required to be overruled.
4
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.”). The Court, having considered de novo the question of diversity
jurisdiction, concludes that diversity jurisdiction is not present in this action and
Defendant’s objection based on diversity jurisdiction is overruled.
Because the Court lacks both diversity and federal question jurisdiction, this
action is required to be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. This action is
REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2014.
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?