American Express National Bank v. Scales

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. Because Defendant did not properly remove the action from the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, it is not necessary to remand the matter to state court. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 8/28/2024. (M,SM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

American Express National Bank,

Case No. 3:24-cv-986

Plaintiff
v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Bobbie Scales,
Defendant
Pro se defendant Bobbie Scales filed this removal action against American Express National
Bank. (ECF No. 1). Defendant filed a document titled “Removed from State Court” and attached a
document titled “Notice of Removal,” purporting to remove a state court action in the Erie County
Court of Common Pleas. (See ECF No. 1-1). It appears that Defendant is challenging Plaintiff’s
attempt to collect a debt. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff violated the Fair Debt Collection Practice
Act and it engaged in an illegal monopoly with the state of Kansas in its attempt to collect a debt of
$16,271.28. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1).
A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a state court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have
original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or that
involve parties of diverse citizenship and exceed $75,000 in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The
party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that the district court has original
jurisdiction. Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 375 (6th Cir. 2007). And “because lack of
jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal
court futile, 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) (alteration in original)
(quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864-65, 33 V.I. 385 (3d Cir. 1996)).
Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is present only when a federal question
appears “on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded Complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Federal counterclaims and defenses are
“inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction,” and do not provide a basis for removal. Beneficial Nat'l
Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 156 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2003) (“To determine whether the
claim arises under federal law, we examine the ‘well pleaded’ allegations of the complaint and ignore
potential defenses . . . .”); see also Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826,
831-32, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 153 L. Ed. 2d 13 (2002) (finding that, pursuant to the well-pleadedcomplaint rule, a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for a federal court’s “arising under”
jurisdiction).
To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the following pleading
requirements must be met: (1) the defendant or defendants must file in the district court a notice of
removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short
and plain statement of the grounds for removal, along with a copy of all pleadings and orders served
upon the defendant or defendants; and (2) the notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of
receiving the complaint or summons, whichever period is shorter, or within 30 days of receiving an
amended pleading, motion, order, or “other paper” from which the removability of the action may
first be ascertained. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and (b).
As an initial matter, this action has not been properly removed. The only documents filed in
this case are Defendant’s documents titled “Removed from State Court” and an attachment titled
“Notice of Removal.” (See ECF Nos. 1, 1-2). Defendant has failed to file any pleadings from the
Erie County Court of Common Pleas. And it is not apparent from the removal notice that
Defendant has timely filed a notice of removal. Additionally, Defendant’s purported defense or
2

counterclaim alleged in the removal notice does not provide a basis for removal. Beneficial Nat'l Bank,
539 U.S. at 6. There is therefore no valid basis for an exercise of federal removal jurisdiction in this
case.
Accordingly, because Defendant did not properly remove the action from the Erie County
Court of Common Pleas, it is not necessary to remand the matter to state court. The Court therefore
dismisses this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this
decision may not be taken in good faith.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

3