American Express National Bank v. Alili et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, 14 Motion to Remand to State Court filed by American Express National Bank is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/10/2025. (wam)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
American Express National Bank,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mahmoud Alili, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:24-cv-105
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and
Granting Motion to Remand

This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation entered by
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on February 12, 2025. (Doc. 17.) The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court Grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this action to the Court of
Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio. (Docs. 14, 17.) The parties did not object to the
Report and Recommendation.
Title 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1)
authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions and
prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement. Parties then have fourteen days to
make file and serve specific written objections to the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (substantially
similar).
The Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff sued
Defendants for breach of contract in the amount of $30,886.20 in the Court of Common Pleas in
1

Hamilton County, Ohio. (Doc. 2.) The Complaint does not provide a basis for the Court to
exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Defendants filed Counterclaims against Plaintiff, including claims arising under the
United States Code, and prayed for relief in an amount greater than $75,000. (Doc. 6.)
However, “it is well settled that federal counterclaims and defenses are inadequate to confer
federal jurisdiction.” Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 914–915 (6th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Also, removal was inappropriate based on
diversity jurisdiction because Alili resides in Ohio. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action
otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may
not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a
citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”) Because this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action, remand is appropriate.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to remand this action to
the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge

2

J:\Lawclerks\Fechtel\1-Orders Adopting R&Rs\AMEX v. Alili--104--Order Adopting R&R Doc.
22.doc

3