Najarian Capital, LLC v. Tucker, 1:17-cv-04012

Najarian Capital, LLC filed a dispossessory proceeding in Fulton County Magistrate Court seeking possession of premises and $139 in court costs.
Defendant Lynette Townes, proceeding pro se, removed the state dispossessory action to federal court and filed an IFP application, alleging FDCPA, Rule 60, O.C.G.A. authority, and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations.
Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller issued an R&R granting limited IFP review to assess removal and recommending remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Townes filed objections asserting federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1443 and attached unrelated allegations involving Wells Fargo.
The district court reviewed the R&R, found no specific rebuttal to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdictional findings, and concluded removal was improper because the plaintiff’s complaint raised only state-law dispossessory claims and the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.
The court adopted the R&R and remanded the case to Fulton County Magistrate Court; it also noted that even if jurisdiction existed, the Anti‑Injunction Act would bar federal intervention in the state eviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court has federal‑question jurisdiction over the removed dispossessory action	Najarian: Complaint raises only state law dispossessory claim	Townes: Asserts FDCPA, Rule 60, Due Process claims in removal to create federal question	Held: No federal‑question jurisdiction; plaintiff’s complaint is purely state law and defenses/counterclaims do not create removal jurisdiction
Whether diversity jurisdiction supports removal	Najarian: Parties appear both Georgia citizens; amount claimed is $139	Townes: Asserts 28 U.S.C. § 1332 jurisdiction (no specific amount showing)	Held: No diversity jurisdiction; parties not diverse and amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000
Whether a pro se litigant’s objections require detailed pleading guidance before remand	Najarian: N/A (court)	Townes: Argued court should instruct how pleadings are deficient and allow repair	Held: Court need not provide such instruction where objections are general/frivolous and do not identify errors
Whether federal relief (stay of eviction) could be granted even if jurisdiction existed	Najarian: N/A	Townes: Sought stay of state eviction	Held: Even if jurisdiction existed, the Anti‑Injunction Act bars federal injunction of state court eviction proceedings

Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (standard for district judge review of magistrate reports)
Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990) (district court must give fresh consideration to objections to an R&R)
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir. 1983) (plain‑error review for portions of R&R not objected to)
Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (courts must inquire into subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well‑pleaded complaint rule governs federal‑question removal jurisdiction)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (federal counterclaims or defenses do not create removal jurisdiction)
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (federal defenses/counterclaims cannot supply federal‑question jurisdiction)
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002) (limitations on removal based on federal question principles)