Bedford Associates et al v. Coleman et al

Filing 5

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: The plaintiffs' motion to remand is granted, and this action will be remanded to state court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/28/16. (LC,S) re 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Bedford Associates, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Willie Coleman, a.k.a Willie
Coleman Ali El, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 16 CV 2471
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Defendant Willie Coleman, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a Notice of
Removal. (Doc. No. 1.) He is purporting to remove an action for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary and permanent injunction filed against him and an unincorporated entity
allegedly used by him as an alias in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Bedford
Associates, et al. v. Willie Coleman, a.k.a. Willie Coleman Ali El, et al., Case No. CV 16869226 (Gallagher, J.) (the “state action”). The plaintiffs in the state action have filed motion to
remand the action to state court. (Doc. No. 3). For the reasons stated below, the motion is
granted.
Background
The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses asserting they have no financial relationship
with the defendants. They filed a Verified Complaint in the state action on September 19, 2016,
alleging the defendants were sending them threatening correspondence and filing fraudulent and
illegal liens and security instruments with the Ohio Secretary of State and Cuyahoga County

Fiscal Officer pertaining to a commercial building owned by plaintiff Bedford Associates. The
state court complaint sets forth seven counts, including counts for injunctive relief preventing
the defendants from continuing to file fraudulent and illegal liens and security instruments
relating to plaintiffs and engaging in other conduct (count I); for mental distress and menacing
by stalking (count II); for malicious prosecution based on defendants’ allegedly filing a
frivolous case in federal court (count III); for slander of title (count IV); for common law fraud
(count V); for fraudulent conduct purportedly carried out pursuant to the Ohio Uniform
Commercial Code (count VI); and for publishing slanderous and defamatory statements in
public records (Count VII).
The state court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order the day
the state action was filed. In addition, on October 4, 2016, after conducting a preliminary
injunction hearing at which the defendants failed to appear, the state court granted the plaintiffs’
request for a preliminary injunction.
The defendants filed their Notice of Removal with this Court on October 7, 2016.
Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any 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
or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.” District courts have original jurisdiction
over civil actions that arise under federal law, and that involve parties of diverse citizenship
where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§1331; 1332(a). The party
seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that the district court has original

-2-

jurisdiction, and the “‘removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in
favor of remand.’” Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549–50 (6th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864–65 (3d Cir. 1996)). A case must be remanded if it
appears at any time that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The plaintiffs contend the action presents no federal claim over which this Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction and must be remanded. They contend there is no federal question
jurisdiction because “no constitutional claim, federal statute or other federal question” is
presented on the face of their state-court complaint, which they assert alleges only “common
law State law claims.” (Doc. No. 3 at 6.) In addition, they contend there is no diversity
jurisdiction because all of the plaintiffs and all of the defendants are residents of the State of
Ohio. (Id.)
The defendants have not responded to the plaintiffs’ motion, or demonstrated a valid
basis for an exercise of federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The defendants’ Notice
of Removal is nonsensical and does not clearly set forth a valid basis for an exercise of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction.
In sum, upon review, the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that federal subject-matter
jurisdiction is lacking in this case.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand is granted,
and this action will be remanded to state court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/28/16

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge

-4-