American Homes 4 Rent Properties Eight, LLC ISAOA v. Green

Filing 12

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Magistrate Court of Columbia County, Georgia, and the Clerk is further directed to terminate all motions associated with this case. Plaintiff is directed to file a memorandum detailing its removal costs by September 8, 2015. If the memorandum is timely filed, the Clerk should wait for further instructions from the Court. If the memorandum is not timely filed, the Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/25/2015. (thb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

IN

A},IERICAN HOMES 4 RENT
PROPERTIES EIGHT, LLC ISAOA,
Pfaintiff,

c v 1 1 s- 0 6 8
TRACY GREEN
rh^

il

l

^t-haze

De f endant s

O RD

PrFsenf

l w

incfudes

remand that
incurred

a

reasons

?adrrAct-

of

a result

as

Court

the

hefoTe

E R

is
^^ofe

f^r

motion

Plaintiff's
.-.t

(Doc. no.

remova].

5. )

mot.ion

below,

F^^^

.

. -t
atL u-v^r7 h u l1 r ,
rr a

to

For

the

GRANTED .

I . BACKGROI'ND
Defendant

is

a former

Cofumbia County, Georgia.

no.

proceedings

dL

).1 \

^r-r 1 n' 'ra --.y 1 '
l d
\

court.

(Doc. no.

1r-rh a
e L

!s

-^hhl
sv'L'y

faLer

r i! r h t -

Fr^m

1.)
le-r hvc
r

q

nafAnd^nj-

DefendanL
rqrr + sd + r l
n va

in

on January 6,

at a foreclosure

init.iated

occupants of

tnt

located

sale.

dispossessory

Court of Columbia CounEy against

in the Magistrate
other

property

(Doc. no. 4, aE 2.)

Plaintiff

7-1.)

Defendant and aft
+ |

real

purchased the property

2015, Pfaintiff
(Doc.

owner of

!J

.(,'in.i

the property.
rcmgygd

has yet
qf

ej- F

the

(Doc. no.

CaSe

to

provide

r-nrtrr

er'f

i .rn

Co

this

a copy of
hrrf

shF

h:s

s tsrPn nulL ' L e rm e n l . e d
P{
U .
uv

A^^lrnaht-c

^r

i r a l r rr d iq nac r : J
u r

.r^1!,nr-.i

-

^^,,F-ar
ruurrui

-!
dr - r r i h da r l Y
9 u

Fl-\5F

to

Motion

rv'rny m rn .lv
!
l rq +

Mav

ri

nl-

14 .

.^,,vF

removal

f i lcd

2O1 E

Pfaintif

2015,

Fl-ri d

(Doc. no. 6.)
Motion

^n

.fune 3,

on

:
4

rr!e

,

fn r

naf i I i ^n

her

,

<rrl-rio-l-

Srrnpri-r

no.

4 . )

a
m-rii*

motion
ar

.furisdiction

and
28

Pursuant

to

construes

this

of

SLay

Aff

Related

Stat.e court,

Supplementaf
Stat.e

(Doc.

1332."

U.S.C.

with

Order

no.

court

11.)

Of

Cfaims

The

as a response to Pfaintiff's

filing

remand

to

an "Emergency

Remand Case Back to

Remand

Vacate

to

to

Cclttrf

irrricdirl-inn

on Jul-y 7, 2oL5, Defendant filed

Answer order

VariOUS

l-ha

{Doc,

f if ed

f

l:nlrc

in

With

Court

motion to

remand .
II.
on a motion
irrriqdi.rinn

n1:r-cd

rrnr)n

v. Best Buv ea-.

2001) .

It

is

construed
remand.

well

Mann v.

sLatutes,

with

(" [w]e

of

removaf

af l- doubts in favor of remand.");

Univ. of

Shamrock Oif
Burns v.
1-994\

favor

in

construe

(citing

Cir.

resolved

is

Co. of Am.. 505 F. App'x 854,

2013)

v. Am. Tobacco co.,

(11th

doubts

fns.

resolving

ram^rr^l

removal jurisdiction

that

UnumLife

cir.

(1941));

all

sFel.i-r.r

ni1.t-\.

federal

269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th cir.

IEs-,

S. Afa.

09

thF

established

narrowfy

(11th

856

to remand, the burden of establishing

i<

Wiffiams

DISCUSSION

strictfy

168 F.3d 405, 411 (1]-th Cir.

1999)

& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108Windsor

Ins.

( " [R]emoval

Co.,

31 F.3d

statutes

are

1092,

1094

construed

A discrict

narrowfy. " ).

nr-oner .'has before

Iimifcd

evid.ence is
defendants

nor

nrioinel

irrri

u!tYfrrqr

(
1441, a) .

,.\'/ar f l-a

A federaf

faw ("federal

federaf

question
of

diversity

involving

jurisdiction").

Federal

A,

governed

by

234 U.S.

Anderson,

F.3d

74,

75-76

I24L,

L25L

Sl-ronq,

651

Fiexibfe

Products Co.,

Kemp v.
1oo?\

/^i

Trust,
+-^^
Ictuc

Int'l
t-in.+

463 U.s.
^F
(JI

ct

1,

^1 -i-{-iFF,^
F)tcrtrrL-Lrr

11
-

must ha-ve

court
28

U-S.C.

TaX

Bd.

(1983)).
^^-^l
-i-{ulJ"'IJrafrrL

S

jurisdiclion
under

I and (2) those

'turi sdiction
federal

a

question

rufe.

Taylor

cornplaint
(i914);
(1lth

Cmty.
Cir.

as
v.

St.at.e Bank v.

20]-L);

Ervast

346 F.3d 1007, 1012 (11t.h Cir.

Bus. Machs. Corp.,
F-=-^hase

to make

an attempt

1332.

on

based

the

("diversity

SS 133I,

well-pfeaded

the

"neither

macter.

jurisdictiol"

Quegtion

Removal jurisdiction

that

has orj.ginaf

citizenship

28 U.S.C.

rf

(1) those arising

actions:

civ-lI

Ala.

aE l2I4-15.

e|h4a-'-

court

district

the

i.e.,

2007\.

a federal

iurisdicLion,

scliclion

two types of

over

Id.

failings."

To have removal

in

evidence

Lowery v'

removal,

estabfish

may speculate

court

the

(11t.h Cir.

L2I4

to

insufficient

the notice's

up for

1184,

483 F.3d

-

fifed

not.ice of removal, anrl accompanying documents'"
Power Co.,

of

universe

remand is

moLion to

when the

availabfe

6nl \r fhc

if

whether removal is

considering

court

v.

2003);

109 F.3d ?08, '7I2 | 11th Cin.
v,

COnSL

In plain
-f-Fa^

-

terms,
fa.l6r.

l

unless
^{rq c D L - v r r , ^ n
\ radlfi

the
q

defendant

mav not

remove a

nor

defenses

its

vaden v.

on

court

rise

this

a party's

neither

give

can

count.erclaims

jurisdiction.

question

federa]

As a resul-t,

Kemp, 109 F.3d at 712.

basis.

to

case

federal

to

Bank, 556 u. s.

Discover

49,

60 (200e) .
In this

(doc. no. 4, aE 3) does not

Pl-aintiff
gueslion.

*2

\ .
t ,

1381

is

Ga.

.

!v '
'

nr L if n ^ r r v J
ir
l a

(holding

2010)

"evclrrsiwelw

,a .naff cr

of

petition

removal-,

federal

nrowi sions:

pr.o.e.llrre

60

Amendment.

not

present

and thus

cannot

a u reaD u - v r r a n
ct r
i
qr

i r r r i < / l i o s i r ,u ! \ r r r .
arfu ^
Ju!f

f arlorr'l

.r1IA<l-

be

Federal- courts
civil

S 1592,

Afthough
face

on rhe

considered

for

^n !sfl Y
h L rnvn v r r lr n *r lIr r

of

federaf
of

t-l-,i s

1-17R

is

her
of

three
Civil-

the
in

of

FourteenLh
nature,

Pfaintiff's

purposes

,d

Rul-e of

Federal

Clause

state

claim

in

viofations

a

these

compfaint

f edera]

. .q <e a
e :- l

n aq sn u
y tr E D e r l1 -oq

nra
r v

i^rr

B.

aIf

1.)

However,

alleges

Due Process

no.

{Doc.

were

claims

anri the

of

qrrhh
u u}l-Ll

E

2015 UL

that

a dispossessory

law" ) .

State

15 U.S.C.

7n(

q

that

Defendant

for

by

a federaf

a matter

"fundamentalfy

Tr n !^
t r

, 4 i F f h ^ r L - r r- - ^
i r- { \^
\-f L
u!449s,

{N.D.

involve

{N.D. Ga. May 26, 2OA5J (stating
action

dlspossessory

filed

Hint.on, No. 1:15-CV-1292,

See Nquven v.

3407856, at

1-r.r,
ldw

action

the dispossessory

case,

actions

Diversity
may exercise

.furisdiction
diversity

jurisdict-ion

where the amount in controversy

over

exceeds

28 U.S.C.

states.

of different

between citizens
1332 (a) (1) .

is

SS 1441(b) (2) , L446(c) (1) .

28 U.s.c.

met.

of

can be a citizen

defendant

?a rT q.C.

. .o,. -- - rJ.! \ *J^ Y .r^ r - F
w
r
\ u, r
L

To meeL Lhe diversity

Constr..

musL aIlege

"'the

MFIP, L.P.

creens

l-h-r

yut

contains
scace,

is

a

v.

653,

654

Iimited

che

alI

Here,
rrrrr-h

Seven oaks

NeverLhefess,

2AtI

Mccovern v
1975))

Cir'

-LI

lcompany's]
(qucting

aL "I

l-hF

there

Ro]linq

374 F.3d

L.L.C.,

Defendant

lesq

a

company, Lhe notice

liabiljLy
of

2004)).

members.

has not

-||:7F-ehjne

alleged
nf

ell

seems Lo be no

is

a cicizen

of

Ceorgia.

The record

thaL

Defendant

is

a citizen

of

Defendant

no evidence

(5th

2OL! \tL \29791A,

citizenchin

thaL

state

and

2011) (clcing

5,

Comcast SCH Holdinqs,

e
J

-]

in

cannoL

No. 2:11cv140 '

Inc.,

Apr.

citizenships

Cir.

Plaintiff's
dispute

511 F.2d

(1lth

Io22

case

requirement,

citizenship."

Constr.,

(N.D. Ala.

Seven Oaks,

members."'

6i

*1

parties

the

was f1led

it

"must distinctly

removal

Talbot

Inc.,

Am. Airfines,

!02a,

v.

L.L.C.

the

a case

Second,

cicizenship

of

each parcy's

aIIege

wL 12979'1I, at

one of

of

notice

allirmacively

no

which

in

state

after

First,

S 1446(c) (1) .

28 U.S.C.

defendant's

the

S 1441(a) (2).

be removed more than one year
court.

condit j-ons musL be

two additional

invoked,

S

when diversity

In the removal context/

jurisdiction

is

and the action

and costs,

of interest

$?5,000, exclusive

and DefendanL's

address

for

service-a

Georgia

anoLher

/n^^

bars

1

4

d
s

does not

duY.

in

\

J

address

-..

lL- 'h s
ra
i

Jq!

rri

.rlnf r.r\/Frsv

1-^a
l

^h

c.ir

.-r
f

:^6

j

e--n

claim

of

nttrn.\q6q

not

nc

(11th

Cir.

stare

claims

'\.annot

v.

Consequentfy,
for

C.

' jn c u r r e d

pursuant

to

r e m o v a - I.

i^n

"

-.

rFrr-\r^l

amounl--in-

be

A

amounL

3s Fed.
Court

to

feduced
-in

App'x

Supp.
858

has no other

che amount-in-

Removal costs

jurisdicrion

request

Plainriff's

address

be met .

Plaintiff's

Because no federal
consider

Che

thj.s purpose,

- a r - r rir r e m e n L C a n n o t

^n\,'

as Lhe premises

BenneLt., 173 F.

as the

co consjder

Of

a Georgia

the

.lpf ar-nr n i ro

l:lc.

.rf

.

aff'd,

2001) .

ir:risdicrion

dcrrni.l

S 1332 (a) .

(N.D. Ca. 2001),

L36L-62

ion in

Citizen

a

a^l

Satisfied

FiF.-mFnl-

" Novast.ar MorLq..

concroversy.

iS

i---^^-r)

28 U,S.C.

scekl-o

v r * 4 l t r

i e

"has listed

: .

has

tv

\z/

Home Loan Morts.

rararrl

:r+vsrr*e

naf Fnrlant

f .-\

t ha

'lFfFndanl

^r^'rrdc

rJs!v!rvr'

d irrerqi

d i qnnsqesqorv

l-hF

\d/

jurisdict.

d-iversicy

che same address

service,

rerruirement

d iqnr-rsseqsorw

2d 1358,

for

cu !r J l! _ . i a . ' r
r r ' eL

M.JrF.r\rFr

m' .v 1 !n a f s ^ r! v I
'L
',
L

l-L^l

t++-L

S

here.

201L WL 4436493 (N.D. Ga'

L'hara

and Lhe defendant

as her

sr

t-h.-

issue

^
IJ ' D . L .
'

See Federal

1:11-CV-2386,

suooesrir.-r

2
- -R

riefcndarrr

matter.

this

JqYY!v!

state

: ra

hc.arrqF

in-et-:rF

/h^l
.li h^
\'Lvrulr1Y

another

. r i \ r voL-r eriL j
r

. arn
sr

prer.-ises at

the

from exercising

Lipal , No.

inf.,)rm^fion v,,
,

rh:r

ThF].Ff.rrp

hy r r
!

exist

v.

Corp.

I

courcs

federaL

for

same address

the

address-is

for

cosls

exis]-s,

,L is

proper

ancl attorney's

2B U. S. C.

5 1 4 4 ' 7l c )

fees

provides

to

a

thaL

"laln

i,ic1

.^cl-

order
c

rnrl

=rrr

^.l-

incurred

as a resuft

actr with

rra1

a reasonable
r't

raarri ra

FvnFn<Fq

that

befief

--raFandanl-

burden

of

Ac(lordi nol rz

thF collrt

The clerk

directed

Court

of

Cofumbia

Pl-aintif

f

removal

costs

timely

is

filed,

is

directed

by

the

If

Georgia,

Lhat Defendant has

motion

and the

f il-e

a

with

for

If

the

oRDER ENTERED at

further

this

further

case.
its

memorandumis
insLrucLions

a memorandum is not timel-]/ filed,

t o C L O S Et f r i s

MaqistraLe

memorandum detailinq

2OI5.

should wait

the

Lo remand.

Cl-erk is

motions associated

to

jurisdiction.

case to

REMANDthis

to

September 8,

the clerk

from the court.

not

reasonable

federal

G R A N T SP f a i n t i f f ' s

County,

directed

the Court finds

establishing

to TERMINATE lf
a

directed

'S

feeq

CONCLUSION

For Ehe reasons above,

is

did

was proper,

pt..inLiFf

e

(Doc. no. 6.)
III.

her

^Fr.1rna1,"

of

However, Lhe Court does noL yet- have a record

of these costs.

met

ncl

Defendant

removal

r!\4u!!!

-removal costs.

noL

inr.'lrrr'1i

removal . " Because

of

pa) rent

rhe case may require

remanding

the Cferk

case.

Augusta,

ceorgia.

this

tRStAay

August,2015

States Dr-strict,Judge
Southern District
of ceorqia

of