FAEC Holdings 382123 LLC v. Steve Arron Investment, LLC
4:23-cv-00391
E.D. Tex.Jul 11, 2023Background
- Plaintiff FAEC Holdings filed a forcible detainer (eviction) action in the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 3, Collin County, Texas.
- Defendant Steve A. Flores (pro se) removed the case to federal court, alleging federal-question jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(A), 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing forcible detainer is a state-law claim within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Texas justice courts and does not raise federal questions.
- Flores filed appeals/filings in state court and additional removal filings, then sought to withdraw one filing; the magistrate judge ordered responses and considered the parties’ arguments.
- The magistrate judge concluded Flores failed to carry the burden to show a federal question: the complaint asserts only a state-law forcible detainer claim and federal defenses/counterclaims cannot support removal.
- Recommendation: grant the Motion to Remand, remand the action to the Justice of the Peace Court, and dismiss other requested relief without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists based on the plaintiff's complaint | No federal claim; forcible detainer is state law and falls in JP court's jurisdiction | Removal proper because alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(A), § 1446(d), and Fourteenth Amendment raise federal questions | No federal-question jurisdiction; complaint raises no federal issue; remand recommended |
| Whether anticipated federal defenses or counterclaims can support removal | Federal defenses/counterclaims cannot create federal-question jurisdiction | Intends to raise federal civil-rights/FDCPA-type issues in defense or counterclaim | Defenses/counterclaims do not establish removal jurisdiction; well-pleaded complaint rule controls |
| Whether forcible detainer can support diversity or other federal jurisdiction | Forcible detainer is only a possession claim under state law and does not invoke federal jurisdiction | (Not asserted) | Forcible detainer arises under state law and cannot be the basis for federal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1993) (removing party bears burden to prove federal jurisdiction)
- In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2007) (federal question exists only when federal law appears on face of complaint)
- Bernhard v. Whitney Nat. Bank, 523 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2008) (well-pleaded complaint rule limits removal jurisdiction)
- Stump v. Potts, [citation="322 F. App'x 379"] (5th Cir. 2009) (forcible detainer/eviction arises solely under state law)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (federal jurisdiction cannot rest on anticipated defenses)
- Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908) (well-pleaded complaint rule originates jurisdictional principle)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (well-pleaded complaint rule applies to original and removal jurisdiction)