Bowen v. Williams et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins, III's Final Report and Recommendation 3 and remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Newton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 6/19/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DAVID B. BOWEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:18-cv-2486-WSD
DEANNA WILLIAMS, WILLIAM
WILLIAMS, and all other occupants,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins, III’s
Final Report and Recommendation (“Final R&R”) [3], which recommends
remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Newton County.
I.
BACKGROUND
Sometime in early May 2018, Plaintiff David B. Bowen (“Plaintiff”)
initiated a dispossessory proceeding against his tenants, Deanna Williams and
William Williams (“Defendants”), in the Magistrate Court of Newton County,
Georgia (the “Newton County Action”).1 On May 24, 2018, Defendant Deanna
Williams, proceeding pro se, removed the Newton County action to this Court, and
1
The property at issue is located at 190 Fox Meadow Drive, Covington,
Georgia 30016. ([2] at 3). The Magistrate Court of Newton County assigned the
matter Case No. 182551DS. (Id.).
on May 25, 2018, she filed the Notice of Removal. (See [1], [2]). Although
Ms. Williams does not allege a basis for jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal,
stating only that she “ha[s] at this time filed [an] appeal,” she does identify federal
question jurisdiction on her civil cover sheet. ([1.1] at 1; [1.2] at 1).
On May 25, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued the Final R&R,
recommending the Court remand the action to the Magistrate Court of Newton
County, Georgia. The parties did not file objections to the Final 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
2
parties have not filed objections to the Final R&R, the Court reviews for plain
error.
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.
3
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.
Co., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012).
The Magistrate Judge first found federal question jurisdiction lacking
because “the underlying case is a state dispossessory action containing no federal
claim.” ([3] at 2). The Magistrate Judge noted that “[e]ven if Williams wishes to
raise counterclaims based on federal statutes, this Court may look only to the
complaint itself to determine whether there is federal question jurisdiction over the
action.” (Id. at 2-3). The Magistrate Judge next found diversity jurisdiction
lacking because “[Plaintiff’s] dispossessory claim against Williams cannot be
reduced to a monetary sum for purposes of satisfying the amount-in-controversy
requirement in § 1332(a).” (Id. at 3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Citimortgage,
Inc. v. Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1382 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (holding that only the
plaintiff’s claim may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, and an action
seeking ejectment cannot be reduced to a monetary sum for purposes of
determining the amount in controversy).
The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendation. 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.
4
§ 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 John K. Larkins, III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the
Magistrate Court of Newton County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of June, 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?