Woodland RAM Partners LLC v. Mason

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/2/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
WOODLAND RAM PARTNERS
a/a/f WOODLAND HILLS APTS.,
as agent of PDQ SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:16-cv-4749-WSD

JAMILLA MASON,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jamilla Mason’s (“Defendant”)
Notice of Removal [3].
I.

BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff Woodland RAM Partners, LLC a/a/f

Woodland Hills Apartments., as agent of PDQ Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) initiated
a dispossessory proceeding against Defendant in the Magistrate Court of DeKalb
County, Georgia.1 The Complaint seeks possession of premises currently occupied
by Defendant, and past due rent and fees.
On December 27, 2016, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the DeKalb
County Action to this Court by filing her Notice of Removal and an application to
1

No. 2014CM17065.

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Defendant 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 [sic],” and the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Notice of Removal at 1-2).
On December 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand granted
Defendant’s IFP application and directed the Clerk of Court to submit this action to
the Court for a frivolity determination [2].
The Court first considers whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action.
II.

DISCUSSION
The Eleventh Circuit has consistently held that “a court should inquire into

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the
proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire
into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of
S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “[O]nce a federal
court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless
to continue.” Id.

2

Congress has provided that “any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal in this case appears to
be based on federal-question jurisdiction, which extends to “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the
‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, a
federal cause of action within a counterclaim or a federal defense is not a basis for
removal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-61 (2009).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is a dispossessory action which is based solely on state
law. No federal question is presented on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. That
Defendant asserts defenses or counterclaims based on federal law cannot confer
federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this 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). Removal is not proper based on federal
question jurisdiction.

3

The Court’s jurisdiction in this action also cannot be based on diversity of
citizenship, which extends to “all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and is between “citizens of different States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (2). It appears that the parties are both Georgia citizens,2
and even if diversity does exist, Defendant fails to show that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The Court must look only to Plaintiff’s claim to
determine if the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. See, e.g.,
Novastar Mortg. Inc. v. Bennett, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1361 (N.D. Ga. 2001),
aff’d, 35 F. App’x 585 (11th Cir. 2002). The Complaint here seeks possession of
premises currently possessed by Defendant and past due rent and fees. It is
well-settled that “a claim seeking only ejectment in a dispossessory action cannot
be reduced to a monetary sum for purposes of determining the amount in
controversy.” Bennett, 173 F. Supp. 2d at 1361-1362; see also Citimortgage, Inc.
v. Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1382 (N.D. Ga. 2010). The
amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied and removal is not proper based
on diversity of citizenship.
Because the Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, this
action is required to be remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at
2

Defendant indicates on her Civil Cover Sheet [1.2] that she and Plaintiff are
citizens of Georgia.
4

any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).3
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the

Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2017.

3

Even if subject matter jurisdiction existed, the Court cannot provide
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. To the extent Defendant seeks to have
the Court find that a completed dispossessory proceeding was wrongful and
overturn a writ of possession issued by a state court, the Court lacks jurisdiction
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to do so. Doe v. Fla. Bar, 630 F.3d 1336, 1341
(11th Cir. 2011) (Federal district courts “generally lack jurisdiction to review a final
state court decision.”) (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983) & Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)).
5