1:24-cv-07733
E.D.N.YJan 7, 2025Background
- Dillian Edwards Bey attempted to remove to federal court a state court holdover eviction proceeding regarding a Brooklyn apartment at 164 St. Johns Place.
- The original state court action did not name Edwards Bey as a respondent or defendant, though he claimed an interest in the property as a "Moorish National."
- The notice of removal referenced both Edwards Bey and the entity "People and Abandoned Properties House of Worship," neither of which were parties in the state action except possibly as fictitious defendants.
- The state eviction case was solely based on state law claims, and no federal question or diversity jurisdiction was asserted or apparent.
- Edwards Bey paid the federal filing fee, but the court reviewed subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether someone not named in the state action can remove the case to federal court | Bey claims right to remove as interested party and resident | No direct argument; plaintiff's filings do not address removal | Only named defendants can remove; Bey is not named and lacks authority |
| Does the case present a federal question for federal jurisdiction | References 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserts right as "Moorish National" | Not applicable; state eviction action | No federal question; claim arises under state law |
| Is diversity jurisdiction present | No express argument for diversity | Not applicable | No diversity; all parties are New York residents |
| Are "Moorish National" claims legally valid for jurisdiction or exemption | Claims such status exempts him from state law | Not applicable | Such claims are routinely rejected; status does not confer immunity or federal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (narrow construction of removal statute and doubts resolved against removability)
- United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298 (burden on removing party to show federal jurisdiction)
- Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. AT&T, 138 F.3d 479 (removed case must be one that could have originally been filed in federal court)