Guardian Tax MO, LLC, LLC v. Stanciel et al

Filing 12

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 9 ], is GRANTED. A separate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 1/18/2023. (JEB)

Case: 4:22-cv-00982-HEA Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/18/23 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 110

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GUARDIAN TAX MO, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATHANIEL STANCIEL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:22CV982 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No.
9]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand.
Background
On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff Guardian Tax MO, LLC, filed this Quiet Title
action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, regarding a property
located at 2109 Mclaran Ave, Jennings, Missouri 63136 (the “Property”) against
the following Defendants: Nathaniel Stanciel; Amanda Beasley; United States of
America, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); The Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District; and City of Jennings, Missouri.
On September 20, 2022, Defendant HUD removed the matter to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(a) and 1442(a)(1).

Case: 4:22-cv-00982-HEA Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/18/23 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 111

Plaintiff’s Petition alleged Defendant HUD may claim some interest in the
Property at issue. However, Defendant HUD discovered that it did not have an
interest in the Property and filed a Disclaimer of Interest [Doc. No. 8].
Based on Defendant HUD’s disclaimer, Plaintiff filed the instant motion,
and a consent to dismissal of Defendant HUD.
Legal Standard
“The district courts of the United States ... are courts of limited jurisdiction.
They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (internal
quotations omitted). Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 1331. A civil action brought in state court may be removed to the proper
district court if the district court has original jurisdiction of the action. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). A claim may be removed to federal court only if it could have been
brought in federal court originally; thus, the diversity and amount in controversy
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 must be met, or the claim must be based upon a
federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Peters v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 80
F.3d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1996).
Discussion
Defendant HUD removed this matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1446(a) and 1442(a)(1). A civil action commenced in a state court against the
2

Case: 4:22-cv-00982-HEA Doc. #: 12 Filed: 01/18/23 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 112

United States, or any agency or officer thereof, may be removed to the “district
court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein
it is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
Because Defendant HUD has been dismissed, the Court no longer has
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. None of the remaining allegations are
against the United States, or any agency or officer thereof. Therefore, the Court
must remand this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. No.
9], is GRANTED.
A separate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this day 18th of January, 2023.

______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3