Soldby Jones Property Management, Inc. v. Palmer
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 2 and remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 5/2/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SOLDBY JONES PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:18-cv-1188-WSD
YHANNA PALMER and All Other
Occupants,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas’s
Final Report and Recommendation [2] (“Final R&R”), which recommends
remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia.
I.
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2018, Solby Jones Property Management Inc. (“Plaintiff”)
initiated a dispossessory proceeding against Defendant Yhanna Palmer
(“Defendant”), in the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia. Plaintiff seeks
the eviction of Defendant, who allegedly holds a rental lease agreement to the
property located at 930 Silverwood Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30349. ([1.1] at 3).
On March 21, 2018, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the Clayton
County Action to this Court by filing her Notice of Removal [1.1]. Defendant
asserts that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because there is a question of
federal law in this action. (Id.).
On March 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final R&R,
recommending that this action be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. ([2]). The parties did not file 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), 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), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Where, as here, the parties have not filed objections
to the R&R, the Court reviews it for plain error.
2
B.
Analysis
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh Circuit
consistently has 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). “Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction
and generally can hear only actions that either meet the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction or that involve a federal question.” Kivisto v. Kulmala, 497 F. App’x
905, 906 (11th Cir. 2012). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states.
28 U.S.C § 1332(a). “[F]ederal-question jurisdiction may be based on a civil
action alleging a violation of the Constitution, or asserting a federal cause of action
established by a congressionally created expressed or implied private remedy for
violations of a federal statute.” Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280, 1282 (11th Cir.
1998). “The removing party bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of
federal subject matter jurisdiction.” City of Vestavia Hills v. Gen. Fidelity Ins.
3
Co., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012).
The Magistrate Judge found, as to federal question jurisdiction, that “[t]he
underlying action is a dispossessory action which is based solely on state law.”
([2] at 3); see also Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1381 (N.D.
Ga. 2010) (citation omitted). The Magistrate Judge concluded that, “Defendant
has failed to meet her burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction over
the underlying dispossessory proceeding.” ([2] at 3); see also Dhinoja, 705 F.
Supp. 2d at 1381 (“If a federal question is not presented on the face of the
complaint, it is no substitute that the defendant is almost certain to raise a federal
defense.”).
Defendant has not shown that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this state dispossessory proceeding, and this action is required to be remanded to
the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia. Cf. Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d
1378 (finding that the court lacked federal jurisdiction over a state dispossessory
action, after it had been removed, and remanding to state court for further
proceedings). The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings
and recommendations.
4
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas’s
Final Report and Recommendation [2] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the
Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2018.
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?