Shah v. Borden
1:15-cv-01658
N.D. Ga.Jun 8, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Mihir Shah filed a dispossessory (eviction) action in Forsyth County Magistrate Court seeking possession for unpaid rent under Georgia law.
- Defendant Nicole Latesha Borden removed the state dispossessory action to federal court, asserting various federal defenses and counterclaims (Fair Housing Act, constitutional claims, and citations to bankruptcy statutes).
- Defendant moved for in forma pauperis, which the magistrate judge granted.
- The magistrate judge considered whether removal was proper and analyzed federal-question, diversity, Section 1443 (civil-rights removal), and potential bankruptcy-removal theories.
- The court concluded Defendant failed to carry the burden to show a valid basis for federal jurisdiction and recommended remanding the case to Magistrate Court of Forsyth County.
- The report directed the clerk to terminate the magistrate judge’s reference and set a 14-day objection period under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question removal under § 1441/§ 1331 | Shah’s complaint pleaded only state law (dispossessory) | Borden invoked federal laws (Fair Housing Act, Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment) as defenses/counterclaims | No federal-question jurisdiction: well-pleaded complaint rule controls; defenses/counterclaims do not support removal; remand recommended |
| Diversity jurisdiction (§ 1332) | N/A — Shah relied on state court proceedings | Borden did not assert diversity; civil cover sheet shows both parties Georgia residents | Diversity not established or pleaded; cannot support removal |
| Removal under § 1443 (civil-rights removal) | N/A | Borden asserted civil-rights-type claims (Fair Housing Act, constitutional violations) | § 1443 requires rights based on statutes stating racial equality and inability to enforce rights in state court; Borden did not allege racial discrimination or facts satisfying the two-prong test; removal not warranted |
| Bankruptcy-related removal (§ 1452/§ 1334) | N/A | Borden cited a bankruptcy statute and has a prior dismissed Chapter 13 filing; implied bankruptcy removal argued | Defendant did not plead § 1452 or comply with Bankruptcy Rule 9027 requirements; court will not sua sponte raise bankruptcy-removal; not a basis for removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (federal-question jurisdiction principles)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (defenses/counterclaims not considered for removal jurisdiction)
- Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2001) (burden of proof on removing party)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (resolve jurisdictional uncertainties in favor of remand)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (federal question in counterclaims/defenses does not permit removal)
- Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (party seeking removal bears burden re: diversity amount and citizenship)
- Fowler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 915 F.2d 616 (11th Cir. 1990) (removing party's burden on diversity jurisdiction)
- Ervast v. Flexible Prods. Co., 346 F.3d 1007 (11th Cir. 2003) (issues not pleaded in notice of removal are waived)
- United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir. 1983) (standard for appellate review when no objections to magistrate report)
- Gavin v. AT&T Corp., 464 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (court will not sua sponte raise unpleaded jurisdictional bases)