Landmark Residential Inc. v. Ahmad
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER that the 3 Final Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. This action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 6/24/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
LANDMARK RESIDENTIAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-1491-WSD
KHOSHAH AHMAD and all other
occupants,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), which recommends remanding
this dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.
I.
BACKGROUND
On or before April 25, 2014, Plaintiff Landmark Residential Inc.
(“Plaintiff”) initiated a dispossessory proceeding against its tenant Defendant
Khoshah Ahmad (“Defendant”) in the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County,
Georgia. The Complaint seeks possession of premises currently occupied by
Defendant, plus past due rent, late fees, and costs.
On May 16, 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 May 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Scofield granted Defendant’s
application to proceed IFP. Judge Scofield also considered sua sponte the question
of federal jurisdiction and recommends that the Court remand this case to the state
court.
Judge Scofield 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 Scofield concluded that the Court does not have federal
question jurisdiction over this matter.1
There are no objections to the R&R.
1
Judge Scofield further noted that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction
over this matter because both Plaintiff and Defendant appear to be citizens of
Georgia.
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 does not object to the R&R’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not present a federal question. The Court does not find any error
in this conclusion. 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 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air
3
Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002).2 This action is thus
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 E. Clayton Scofield’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. This action is
REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2014.
2
The Court also does not find plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
(providing that diversity jurisdiction exists over civil actions between “citizens of
different States”).
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?