Hanea v. Boggan
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Final Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/29/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ADRIAN HANEA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-1173-WSD
TIFFANY BOGGAN,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), which recommends remanding to state
court this dispossessory action that Defendant Tiffany Boggan (“Defendant”)
wrongfully removed to this Court.
I.
BACKGROUND
This is a dispossessory action filed by Plaintiff Adrian Hanea (“Plaintiff”)
against Defendant in the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. On April
21, 2014, Defendant removed the case to this Court by filing her “Petition for
Removal” and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).
Although not entirely clear from Defendant’s submissions, Defendant appears to
assert that, in attempting to evict Defendant from her home, Plaintiff violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On April 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Anand granted Defendant’s IFP
Application. Judge Anand also considered sua sponte the question of federal
jurisdiction and issued his R&R recommending that the Court remand this case to
state court. The R&R 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. The Magistrate Judge thus concluded that there is no
federal jurisdiction over this cause of action and that the case is required to be
remanded to state court.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
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
2
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
Defendant has not filed an objection to the R&R’s conclusion that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court does not find any error
in that conclusion. The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter
because a federal question is not presented on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
and Defendant’s assertions of defenses or counterclaims based on federal law
cannot confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Beneficial
Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air
Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002).1 Because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the action is required to be remanded.
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.”).
1
Although not addressed in the R&R, the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction
over this matter because Defendant has not demonstrated that she and Plaintiff are
citizens of different states or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th
Cir. 2001) (holding that the defendant must establish the basis for diversity
jurisdiction over a removed action).
3
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
REMAND this action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2014.
4
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?