Hill v. Moore
Filing
12
ORDER remanding this case to the Superior Court of Camden County, Georgia due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on either federal question or diversity of citizenship over this matter. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 11/17/2022. (jlh)
Case 2:22-cv-00114-LGW-BWC Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 6
In the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
Brunswick Division
THOMAS HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CV 2:22-114
JASMINE MOORE,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Thomas Hill filed an “Application for Contempt and
Attorney Fees” in the Superior Court of Camden County, Georgia on
May 24, 2022.
Dkt. No. 11 at 10.
Therein, Plaintiff alleged that
Defendant Jasmine Moore had violated the Final Judgment and Decree
from their divorce action, specifically, that Defendant had denied
Plaintiff visitation with their minor child.
See id. at 11.
On or about October 21, 2022, Defendant removed the case to
the
United
Florida.
States
District
Court
Id. at 9; Dkt. No. 1.
for
the
Middle
District
of
The Middle District of Florida
then transferred the case to this Court.
Dkt. No. 4; see also 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“[A]ny 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 . . . to the district
court of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending.”).
Case 2:22-cv-00114-LGW-BWC Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 6
LEGAL AUTHORITY
“[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. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d
405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
DISCUSSION
In the removal notice, Defendant asserts this Court has
original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
I.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Section
1331
provides
district
courts
with
“original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.”
This is often referred
to as “federal question” jurisdiction.
In deciding whether a
federal question exists, the court must apply the well-pleaded
complaint
rule
whereby
the
court
looks
to
the
face
of
the
complaint, rather than to any defenses asserted by the defendant.
See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
Consequently, the general rule is that a case may not be removed
to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.
393.
2
See id. at
Case 2:22-cv-00114-LGW-BWC Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 6
In the notice of removal, Defendant asserts “the complaint
alleges claims arising under:
United
States
(1) The Due Process clauses of the
Constitution”
which
“require
judges
follow
procedures to protect vulnerable minors from abuse, especially
sexual,” and “[t]he Judge did not recuse themselves from the case
when there was a strong likelihood he was biased.”
2.
Dkt. No. 1 at
Plaintiff’s assertions are incorrect.
First,
claims.
the
underlying
complaint
alleges
no
Due
Process
Instead, the complaint alleges contempt by Defendant for
failing to adhere to a parenting plan which allows Plaintiff
visitation with their minor child.
Second, Defendant’s assertion
that she denied visitation to protect her child from abuse and
that the judge of the underlying divorce case should have recused
himself are defenses to Plaintiff’s contempt allegations, not
claims within the complaint.
93.
See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392-
The Court concludes the face of the complaint does not confer
federal question jurisdiction upon this Court.
II.
Diversity Jurisdiction
Section 1441(b) does not, itself, provide district courts
with original jurisdiction.
civil
actions.
attempting
to
However,
assert
Court
gleans
jurisdiction
based
citizenship of the parties.
28 U.S.C. § 1332).
Instead, it addresses the removal of
the
that
on
Defendant
diversity
is
of
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (referencing
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a district court
3
Case 2:22-cv-00114-LGW-BWC Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 6
has diversity jurisdiction over parties who are completely diverse
in
citizenship
to
one
another
and
whose
claims
exceed
the
statutorily prescribed amount in controversy of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.
“Removal is proper if it is ‘facially apparent’ from the
complaint
that
the
amount
in
controversy
exceeds
the
jurisdictional requirement.” Moore v. CNA Foundation, 472 F. Supp.
2d 1327, 1331 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (quoting Williams v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)).
If a case is removed,
the defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that diversity jurisdiction does in fact exist.
Williams,
269
F.3d
at
1319
(citation
omitted).
Specifically,
“[w]here . . . the plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of
damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of
the
evidence
jurisdictional
that
the
amount
requirement.”
in
Id.
controversy
(citation
exceeds
omitted).
the
The
Eleventh Circuit has held that where “the jurisdictional amount is
not facially apparent from the complaint, the court should look to
the notice of removal and may require evidence relevant to the
amount in controversy at the time the case was removed.” Id.
(citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189
(1936)).
removal
However, “[a] conclusory allegation in the notice of
that
the
jurisdictional
amount
is
satisfied,
without
setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion,
4
Case 2:22-cv-00114-LGW-BWC Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 6
is insufficient to meet the defendant's burden.”
Id. at 1319-20.
To be sure, while it is true that a district court may rely on
“reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable
extrapolations” in determining whether a defendant has met its
burden, such deductions and inferences must be based on actual
evidence as opposed to pure conjecture.
Pretka v. Kolter City
Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010).
Here, it is not “‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.”
Moore, 472 F. Supp. 2d at 1331.
Indeed, aside from Plaintiff
seeking “reasonable attorney’s fees,” the complaint mentions no
monetary amount in controversy at all.
See Dkt. No. 11 at 11.
Similarly, Defendant’s notice of removal provides no information
whatsoever about an amount in controversy.
See Dkt. No. 1.
A
review of the record is also inconclusive as to any amount in
controversy.
Williams, 269 F.3d at 1320.
Defendant has thus not
met her burden to show the Court has diversity jurisdiction over
this case.
Id. at 1319.
While the Court may require Plaintiff “to submit summaryjudgment type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at
the time of removal,” id. (quoting Sierminski v. Transouth Fin.
Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000)), the Court finds that
same would be futile in this case.
The underlying state court
contempt action does not involve a dispute about money.
5
According
Case 2:22-cv-00114-LGW-BWC Document 12 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 6
to the complaint, Plaintiff is simply challenging Defendant’s
actions with regard to a parenting plan reached as part of the
parties’ divorce action.
In short, Plaintiff seeks visitation
with his child, not a dollar amount.
And while a reasonable amount
of attorney’s fees may be considered when determining the amount
in controversy under certain circumstances, Morrison v. Allstate
Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000), the Court finds
that the attorney’s fees in this case would not come close to
reaching
the
$75,000
jurisdictional
requirement
to
establish
diversity jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, based on either federal question or diversity of
citizenship, over this matter.
It is therefore ORDERED that this
case be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Camden County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2022.
HON. LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
6
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?