Virginia Housing Development Authority v. Meredith et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on December 12, 2012. (sfc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
LYNCHBURG DIVISION
VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
CASE NO. 6:12-cv-00050
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
CHARLES B. MEREDITH,
JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
Defendant.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court upon Plaintiff Virginia Housing Development Authority’s
(“VHDA”) motion to remand to state court. VHDA originally brought an unlawful detainer
action in Lynchburg General District Court against Defendant Charles Meredith (“Defendant”).
VHDA alleged that Defendant refused to vacate real property located at 614 Dinwiddie Street in
Lynchburg after VHDA purchased the property at a foreclosure sale on August 1, 2012. On
September 25, 2012, Defendant removed the case to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant contends that the foreclosure
sale violated the Fourteenth Amendment and various federal statutes. Plaintiff moves to remand
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. DISCUSSION
The law regarding removal based on federal question jurisdiction is well established.
Cases filed in state court can be removed only when a plaintiff could have filed the case in
federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Chicago v. Int’l Coll. Of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156,
163 (1997). “Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule . . . a suit ‘arises under’
federal law ‘only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based
upon [federal law].’” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville &
Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest
on a defense to the claim or upon actual or anticipated counterclaims. Id. “If federal jurisdiction
is doubtful, a remand is necessary.” Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals Co., Inc., 29
F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994).
This case was filed originally in state court as an unlawful detainer based on state law.
There is nothing on the face of the complaint that presents a federal question. Any defenses to
the unlawful detainer or any counterclaims that Defendant may bring cannot confer federal
question jurisdiction upon this Court. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60; Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v.
Goode, No. 4:11-cv-00016, 2011 WL 3349810 (W.D. Va. 2011). Thus, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear the case, and it shall be remanded to Lynchburg General District Court.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand shall be granted. An
appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this memorandum
opinion and the accompanying order to all counsel of record.
12th
Entered this _____ day of December, 2012.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?