White v. Housing Authority for Baltimore City

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting HABC's 8 Request for Relief based upon dismissal of underlying action; dismissing complaint and closing case. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 10/11/2016. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 10/11/16-das)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-4055

October 11, 2016
MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE:

Erica S. White v. Housing Authority
for Baltimore City
Civil Action No. GLR-16-1965

Dear Parties:
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s, Housing Authority for Baltimore City
(“HABC”), Request for Relief Based upon Dismissal of Underlying Action. (ECF No. 8). The
Request is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016).
For the reasons outlined below, the Court will grant the Request.
On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff Erica S. White filed suit against HABC in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland alleging claims arising under various state and federal statutes, and
the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 2). On June 8, HABC filed a Notice of Removal under
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and § 1443 (2012). (ECF No. 1). On that same day, HABC submitted a
Certificate of Filing Notice of Removal (“the Certificate”) to the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, but the court never docketed the Certificate. (ECF No. 8-2). On June 9, the Circuit Court
dismissed White’s action because the court denied her motion to waive prepayment of filing fee.
(ECF No. 8-1). Accordingly, on June 14, when the Circuit Court received the Certificate, it did
not docket it. (See ECF No. 8-2). Instead, the court returned the Certificate and informed
HABC that the case was closed. (Id.). On July 7, HABC filed the present Request in this Court.
(ECF No. 8).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a removing defendant must serve notice of removal on its
adversaries and “file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the
removal.” In the Fourth Circuit, a state court loses jurisdiction “upon the filing of the petition
[for removal] in the federal court and a copy in the state court.” South Carolina v. Moore, 447
F.2d 1067, 1073 (4th Cir. 1971). The purpose of filing a copy of the removal petition with the
state court is to give the state court “notice of the removal so that it can stay its proceedings and
thereby avoid duplicitous and possibly inconsistent results in the same case.” Delavigne v.
Delavigne, 530 F.2d 598, 601 n.5 (4th Cir. 1976). “[T]hat purpose [is] achieved where the state
court had actual notice of the removal.” Id. Thus, when the state court docket does not reflect
that a defendant filed notice, the defendant has not effected removal. See Johnson v. Citibank,
N.A., 63 F.Supp.3d 545, 555 (D.Md. 2014) (finding that removal was effected when Citibank
filed its Motion to Stay State Proceedings in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County,
Maryland, not when Citibank filed an earlier notice of removal, because “the Circuit Court
Docket does not reflect that the notice ever was filed in that court”).

Here, HABC never effected removal because the Circuit Court for Baltimore City did not
docket the Certificate. See Johnson, 63 F.Supp.3d at 555; cf. Nieto v. Univ. of N.M., 727
F.Supp.2d 1176, 1184 (D.N.M. 2010) (“[T]here is generally no jurisdiction to remove closed
cases, because if a case is closed, no case or controversy exists.” (quoting Brown v. District
Director, No. 01-D-1625, 2002 WL 1760847, at *4 (D.Colo. July 15, 2002))). As such, the
Court will grant HABC’s Request.
For the foregoing reasons, HABC’s Request for Relief Based upon Dismissal of
Underlying Action (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED.
Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of this Court, and
the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly, CLOSE this case, and mail copies to White at her
address of record.
Very truly yours,
/s/
_______________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

2