Team Real Estate Management v. Smith

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED. This action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/19/2014. (anc)

On August 12, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the DeKalb
County Action to this Court by filing her Notice of Removal and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [1]. Defendant appears to assert that there is
federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on the existence of a question of federal
law. She claims in her Notice of Removal that “Respondent” violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and Rule 60
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “having a legal duty to abort eviction
pursuant to O.C.G.A. [§] 51-1-6,” and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. (Notice of Removal at 1-2).
On August 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge King granted Defendant’s application
to proceed IFP. Judge King also considered sua sponte the question of subject
matter jurisdiction and recommends that the Court remand this case to the
Magistrate Court of DeKalb County.
Judge King found that Plaintiff’s underlying pleading shows that this action
is a dispossessory action, which Defendant contends violates federal law. Noting
that a federal law defense or counterclaim alone is not sufficient to confer federal
jurisdiction, Judge King concluded that the Court does not have federal question
jurisdiction over this matter. Judge King also found that, even if she could show
that the parties’ citizenship is completely diverse, Defendant fails to show that the

2

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Judge King concluded that the Court
does not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter and that this case is required to
be remanded to the state court.
There are no 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, 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 conclusions that Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not present a federal question and that the parties are not diverse.
The Court does not found any error in these conclusions. It is well-settled that

3

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 Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32
(2002). The record also does not show that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of
different states, or that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory threshold of
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); 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,
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.”).
Because the Court lacks both federal question and diversity 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.”).2
2

Even if subject-matter jurisdiction existed, the Court is unable to grant
4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final

Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. This action is REMANDED to
the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.

SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2014.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant the relief she seeks—a stay of state court eviction proceedings—
because a federal court is prohibited under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2283, from enjoining a state court eviction proceeding.
5