180A Rockaway Ave LLC v. Caulker
1:22-cv-01058
E.D.N.YApr 14, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff 180A Rockaway Ave., LLC (tenant claim) seeks unpaid rent and possession of 180 Rockaway Avenue, Brooklyn; rent was $1,625/month.
- Plaintiff filed in New York City Civil Court, Kings County (Housing Part); defendant Christopher Caulker removed the case to federal court on Feb 25, 2022.
- Caulker’s notice of removal asserted federal and state counterclaims (including alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. § 6802 and the Fourth Amendment) and sought $80,000 in damages.
- Plaintiff moved to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (or alternatively for leave to move to dismiss); the matter was referred to a magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation.
- Magistrate Judge Bloom recommended remand because the petition (plaintiff’s complaint) asserts only a state-law rent/possession claim, there is no diversity basis, and federal issues arise only in defendant’s counterclaims.
- The recommendation rests on the well-pleaded complaint rule: counterclaims cannot create federal-question jurisdiction; therefore the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and should remand.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists based on defendant's counterclaims | No — complaint raises only state-law rent/possession claim; federal law not on face of complaint | Yes — counterclaims raise federal statutory and constitutional claims, so federal jurisdiction exists | No — federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal issue on the face of the plaintiff's complaint; counterclaims cannot supply it (remand recommended) |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction supports removal | No — no basis shown for complete diversity or amount in controversy from plaintiff's complaint | Implied: defendant's $80,000 counterclaim meets amount threshold | No — court found no basis for diversity jurisdiction; amount/party alignment does not support removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (well-pleaded complaint rule; counterclaims cannot create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (scope of federal-question jurisdiction explained)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (jurisdiction cannot be invoked on basis of defense or counterclaim)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal question must appear on face of properly pleaded complaint)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived)
- Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.2d 153 (court must assure itself of subject-matter jurisdiction before proceeding)