Task LLC v. Cade, 8:25-cv-02158

Plaintiff Task LLC purchased a property at 404 Prairie Court, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, at auction following a foreclosure against Defendant Eric Cade.
Plaintiff secured a judgment for possession of the property in Maryland state court.
Defendant Cade appealed the judgment to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County and filed for bankruptcy during the appeal.
The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the property was not subject to an automatic stay and Defendant had no interest in it, permitting the Plaintiff to pursue possession.
After the Circuit Court lifted the stay and set a briefing schedule, Defendant removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Task LLC moved to remand, arguing lack of a federal question, res judicata, ongoing state proceedings, and untimely removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal Question Jurisdiction	No federal question appears on the face of the complaint.	Federal question exists; removal is proper.	No federal question; removal improper.
Res Judicata	Prior judgment on merits bars Defendant's claims.	(Not clearly articulated)	Not directly addressed; remand granted
Federal Interference	Federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state court proceedings.	(Not clearly articulated)	Cited as policy against removal.
Timeliness of Removal	Removal not filed within 30 days of service of complaint, thus untimely.	(Not clearly articulated)	Not timely; supports remand.

Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811 (4th Cir. 2004) (burden of demonstrating jurisdiction is on the removing party)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction)
Cook v. Georgetown Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 1272 (4th Cir. 1985) (federal defenses do not create federal question jurisdiction)
American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951) (propriety of removal determined from face of the pleadings)