Compass Property Mgmt LLC v. Laster
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 3 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/18/2015. (anc)
On August 10, 2015, 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 because there is in the case a question of federal
law. In her Petition for Removal, Defendant claims that Plaintiff violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3631 et seq., Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant
claims further that the Court “[has] the legal duty to abort eviction pursuant to
O.C.G.A. [§] 51-1-6 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692.” (Pet. for Removal at 1-2).
On August 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge King granted Defendant’s application
to proceed IFP. The Magistrate Judge then considered, sua sponte, whether there
is federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that federal subject matter
jurisdiction was not present and recommended that the Court remand the case to
the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County. The Magistrate Judge found that the
Complaint filed in Magistrate Court asserts a state court dispossessory action and
does not allege federal law claims. Because a federal law defense or counterclaim
does not confer federal jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court
does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter. The Magistrate Judge
2
also found that Defendant failed to allege any facts to show that the parties’
citizenship is completely diverse, or that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. The Magistrate Judge 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), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983). 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).
3
B.
Analysis
Defendant does not object to the R&R’s finding that Plaintiff's Complaint
does not present a federal question and that the parties are not diverse. The Court
does not find any plain error in these conclusions. It is well-settled that federalquestion 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.”).
4
Because the Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that this action 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.”).
Defendant did not object to this recommendation and the Court finds no plain error
in it.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be REMANDED to the
Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2015.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?