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