Bannister Associates v. Gibson

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 10/10/12. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BANNISTER ASSOCIATES

v.
CHERELL GIBSON

*
*
*
*
*
*
******

Civil No. – JFM-12-2433

MEMORANDUM

This action for eviction was originally instituted in the District Court of Maryland for
Charles County, Maryland. Defendant removed the action to this court on the ground that a
federal question is presented. Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. The motion will be
granted.1
Plaintiff, the landlord of an apartment project, alleges that plaintiff, a “Section 8” tenant,
has violated the terms of her lease agreement with plaintiff.2
Defendant argues that because the provisions of the lease agreement are dictated by
federal regulations and because the agreement provides that its termination “must be carried out
in accordance with HUD regulations,” the case is properly removable.
In my judgment these allegations are insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction.
Such jurisdiction is available only where a claim “necessarily depends on resolution of the
substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation
Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Here, “a substantial question of federal law” does not underlie

1

Plaintiff also seeks the award of attorneys’ fees. The question presented is sufficiently close that I do not believe
that attorneys’ fees should be awarded. Accordingly, the request for attorneys’ fees is denied.
2
The case also has a somewhat unusual factual history in that plaintiff attempted to have defendant’s motor vehicle
towed, causing an incident that resulted in plaintiff having a charge for second degree assault lodged against
defendant.

1

plaintiff’s claim. Moreover, Congress certainly did not contemplate that every eviction case
concerning a Section 8 tenant would be brought in federal court. See Grable & Sons Metal
Productions, Inc. v. Darue, 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005) (“[A] federal issue will ultimately qualify
for federal forum only if federal jurisdiction is consistent with congressional judgment about the
sound division of labor between state and federal courts . . . .”) The District Court of Maryland
is as equally competent as is this court to determine whether the terms of the lease agreement and
the HUD regulations were complied with.
A separate order effecting the rulings made in this memorandum is being entered
herewith.

Date: October 10, 2012

___/s/______________________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

2