Seven Courts, The Partnership Inc. v. Knowles, 1:17-cv-02040

Plaintiff Seven Courts, The Partnership, Inc. filed a dispossessory (eviction) action in the Magistrate Court of Fulton County seeking to remove Defendant from the premises.
Defendant Kayla Knowles, proceeding pro se, removed the state dispossessory action to federal court and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
The district court granted in forma pauperis status solely to evaluate whether removal was proper.
Removal was premised on asserted federal-question jurisdiction by Knowles.
The magistrate judge evaluated subject-matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule and removal statutes and found no federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s state-law dispossessory warrant.
The magistrate judge recommended remand to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a state dispossessory action removed to federal court	Seven Courts argued (implicitly) that the case belongs in state court as a state-law dispossessory action	Knowles argued removal was proper based on federal-question jurisdiction	Court held no federal question appears on the face of the complaint; removal improper and remand recommended
Whether defenses or anticipated federal issues can establish removability	N/A (Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only state-law claims)	Knowles relied on anticipated federal defenses or constitutional claims to justify removal	Held that under the well-pleaded complaint rule, defendant’s anticipated federal defenses cannot create federal-question jurisdiction
Burden of proof for removal jurisdiction	N/A	Knowles must establish federal jurisdiction to justify removal	Held that the removing party bears the burden and Knowles did not meet it
Standard for construing removal statutes and remand	N/A	N/A	Held removal statutes construed narrowly; doubts resolved in favor of remand; remand ordered for lack of jurisdiction

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal-question jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint present a federal issue)
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (well-pleaded complaint rule governs removability)
Ben. Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (defenses arising under federal law are ignored when determining whether a claim arises under federal law)
Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del., 366 U.S. 656 (plaintiff’s failure to plead a federal question cannot be cured by defendant’s federal defense)
Burns v. Windsor Ins., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir.) (removal statute construed narrowly; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)