Lakefront at West Chester, LLC v. Holmes, 1:21-cv-00444-SJD-KLL

Lakefront at West Chester filed a state-court forcible entry and detainer action against Rosalind Holmes seeking eviction and damages after her tenancy allegedly terminated and she failed to vacate.
Holmes filed a pro se removal to federal court asserting a federal housing-discrimination defense under Title VIII (42 U.S.C. § 3601) and later opposed remand.
Lakefront moved to remand, arguing the state complaint raises only state-law eviction claims and federal jurisdiction is lacking.
The magistrate judge applied the well-pleaded complaint rule and related removal principles, concluding Holmes bore the burden to show federal subject-matter jurisdiction and that removal statutes must be strictly construed.
Court found no federal-question jurisdiction (Holmes’s asserted federal issues were defenses), artful-pleading did not apply, Holmes could not remove as the state-court plaintiff/counterclaim defendant, and diversity removal was barred because Holmes is an Ohio resident.
Recommendation: deny Holmes’s removal and opposition to remand, grant Lakefront’s remand motion, deny several ancillary motions as moot, and remand/dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question removal jurisdiction exists	Holmes: eviction arises from same incidents as her Title VIII discrimination complaint; therefore federal question exists	Lakefront: the state complaint asserts only eviction (state law); a federal defense does not confer removal jurisdiction	No federal-question jurisdiction; federal defense insufficient for removal under the well-pleaded complaint rule
Whether the artful-pleading doctrine requires federal jurisdiction	Holmes: Lakefront artfully pleaded eviction to evade federal jurisdiction	Lakefront: complaint is a straightforward eviction claim, not a disguised federal claim	Artful-pleading doctrine does not apply; complaint does not actually plead a federal cause of action
Whether Holmes (state-court plaintiff) may remove after eviction is filed as a counterclaim	Holmes: eviction should have been a compulsory counterclaim to her discrimination suit, implying federal court jurisdiction	Lakefront: statute limits removal to defendants; a state-court plaintiff cannot remove as a counterclaim defendant	Holmes cannot remove; only defendants may remove (Shamrock/Home Depot principles)
Whether diversity jurisdiction permits removal	Holmes: (implicitly) diversity could support removal	Lakefront: Holmes is an Ohio resident; §1441(b)(2) bars removal when a properly joined defendant is a state resident	Diversity removal is barred because a resident defendant (Holmes) is present

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal defense is not basis for removal)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal-question jurisdiction arises only when federal law creates the cause or plaintiff’s right depends on resolution of a federal issue)
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (reinforcing the well-pleaded complaint rule)
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (removal is limited to defendants; plaintiffs generally may not remove)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019) (§1441(a) does not permit removal by a counterclaim defendant or state-court plaintiff)
Berera v. Mesa Med. Grp., PLLC, 779 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2015) (explaining the artful-pleading doctrine and when to look beyond complaint form)
Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2007) (removal principles; federal defense does not establish jurisdiction)