American Express National Bank v. Alili et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 19 Report and Recommendations. Accrordingly 13 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.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
American Express National Bank,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mahmoud Alili and
Stars Wireless and Smoke LLC,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:24-cv-107
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Granting
Motion to Remand

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
that Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s Motion to Remand be granted. (Doc. 19.) 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 of Hamilton County, Ohio alleging that Mahmoud Alili and Stars Wireless and
Smoke Shop LLC failed to comply with the terms of a credit card account and pay the balance of
$2,902.31 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 filed a Notice of Removal to federal Court alleging federal jurisdiction based on
federal law and diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Remand this
action back to state court based on lack of federal jurisdiction. (Doc. 13.) Defendant Alili did
not respond to either 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)

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 Defendants for breach of contract in the
amount of $2,902.31 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 Alili 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 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. 19) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to

2

Remand (Doc. 13) 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