609 F. App'x 979
11th Cir.2015Background
- Christine Stone (pro se) sued multiple defendants in state court alleging claims arising from a non-judicial foreclosure of her home.
- Four defendants (Litton Loan Servicing LP; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Bank of New York Mellon; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction.
- Prommis Solutions, LLC was served but did not join the removal; it later opposed remand and moved to dismiss.
- Stone moved to remand, arguing lack of federal jurisdiction and that removal failed the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).
- The district court refused remand, dismissed most claims for failure to state a claim, and set aside a default for good cause; Stone appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question) | Stone: claims do not arise under federal law; federal court lacks jurisdiction | Defendants: complaint includes federal-law causes of action or depends on federal questions | Held: federal-question jurisdiction existed because complaint contained federal causes of action |
| Whether removal failed for lack of unanimous consent under § 1446(b)(2)(A) | Stone: Prommis did not join removal, so unanimity rule violated | Defendants: Prommis opposed remand and thus cured any technical unanimity defect | Held: district court did not err; opposing remand cured the technical defect |
| Whether the complaint should have survived Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal | Stone: complaint states viable claims and should not be dismissed | Defendants: claims time-barred, barred under Georgia law, or unsupported by law/fact | Held: dismissal proper; amendment would be futile given statute-of-limitations and lack of actionable claims |
| Whether district court abused discretion in setting aside a default | Stone: default should remain | Defaulting defendant: did not receive complaint; default not willful | Held: no abuse of discretion; default properly set aside for good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. N. Am. Sports, Inc., 623 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing remand denial)
- MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC, 420 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir.) (when a claim "arises under" federal law)
- Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir.) (unanimity rule for removal)
- Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir.) (strict interpretation of removal rules due to federalism concerns)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir.) (technical unanimity defects may be cured by opposing remand)
- Silva v. Bieluch, 351 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir.) (leave to amend generally required unless futile)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (amendment is futile when the amended complaint would still be dismissed)
- Compania Interamericana Exp.-Imp., S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948 (11th Cir.) (standard for setting aside defaults)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. Supreme Court) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)