American Express National Bank v. Alili

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly 11 Motion to Remand 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.)

Case: 1:24-cv-00106-SJD-KLL Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/10/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 63

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:24-cv-106
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting with Modification
Report and Recommendation and
Granting Motion to Remand

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
that Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s Motion to Remand this matter to the Municipal
Court in Hamilton County, Ohio be granted.1 (Doc. 14.) The parties did not object to the Report
and Recommendation.
Plaintiff American Express National Bank initiated a breach of contract action in the
Municipal Court in Hamilton County, Ohio alleging that Mahmoud Alili failed to comply with
the terms of a credit card account and pay the $10,505.98 balance owning on the account. (Doc.
2.) Defendant Alili filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking damages of $1,250,000 and
alleging claims under Ohio law, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (Doc. 3.)
Alili then filed a Notice of Removal to federal Court alleging federal jurisdiction based
on federal law and diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this
1

The Magistrate Judge recommended remanding this action to the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, Ohio.
(Doc. 14 at PageID 61.) This was likely a clerical mistake as Mahmoud Alili is party to several related actions
pending in this court with similar facts. See Alili v. Am. Express Co., No. 1:24-cv-101 (S.D. Ohio); Am. Express
Nat’l Bank v. Alili, No. 1:24-cv-104 (S.D. Ohio); Am. Express Nat’l Bank v. Alili, No. 1:24-cv-105 (S.D. Ohio); Am.
Express Nat’l Bank v. Alili, No. 1:24-cv-106 (S.D. Ohio); Am. Express Nat’l Bank v. Alili, 1:24-cv-107 (S.D. Ohio);
Am. Express Nat’l Bank v. Alili, No. 24-cv-108 (S.D. Ohio). Plaintiff moved to remand the case to Hamilton County
Municipal Court, where it originated. (Doc. 11.) Thus, the Court ADOPTS WITH MODIFICATION the Report
and Recommendation and will remand this case to the Municipal Court in Hamilton County, Ohio, not the Court of
Common Pleas in Butler County, Ohio.
1

Case: 1:24-cv-00106-SJD-KLL Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/10/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 64

action back Municipal Court in Hamilton County, Ohio based on lack of federal jurisdiction.
(Doc. 11.) Defendant Alili did not respond to the Motion to Remand or file Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s 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 that remand is
appropriate due to lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract in the
amount of $10,505.98 in the Municipal Court in 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. Defendant filed Counterclaims against
Plaintiff, including claims arising under the United States Code, and prayed for relief in an
amount greater than $75,000. (Doc. 3.) 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

2

Case: 1:24-cv-00106-SJD-KLL Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/10/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 65

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. 14) is ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION,
and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED
to remand this action to the Municipal Court in Hamilton County, Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge

3