United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC's (“Plaintiff” or
“Bayview”) Motion to Remand .
September 7, 2016, Bayview filed a dispossessory warrant
(“Complaint”) against its tenant, Defendant
Calvin R. White (“Defendant”) in the Magistrate
Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The Complaint asserts that
Defendant is a tenant at sufferance following a foreclosure
sale of the Property and seeks possession of premises
currently occupied by Defendant.
September 21, 2016, Defendant filed, in the Magistrate Court
of Fulton County, his “Dispossessory Answer”
(“Answer”). (Notice of Removal  at 7).
September 28, 2016, Defendant removed the Fulton County
Action to this Court by filing his Notice of Removal.
Defendant appears to assert that there is federal subject
matter jurisdiction because there is in the case a question
of federal law. In his Notice of Removal, Defendant claims
that Plaintiff violated “various systematic and
premeditated deprivations of fundamental [r]ights guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution” and “18 U.S.C.
§§ 241 and 242.” (Notice of Removal at 3).
Defendant also asserts a counterclaim, under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, for an alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
(Id. at 1).
February 8, 2017, Plaintiff moved to remand the action to
state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction .
Plaintiff argues that remand is proper because the Complaint
filed in magistrate court asserts a state court dispossessory
action and does not present a question of federal law.
(See [2.1] at 4). Defendant did not respond to
has provided that “any civil action brought in a State
court of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant”
to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). When a case is
removed, “the burden is on the party who sought removal
to demonstrate that federal jurisdiction exists.”
Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1281
n.5 (11th Cir. 2001); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269
F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). “[U]ncertainties are
resolved in favor of remand.” Burns v. Windsor Ins.
Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Once a case is
removed, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
removing defendant must file with the district court a notice
of removal “containing a short and plain statement of
the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446. When a
plaintiff makes a timely motion to remand, “the
district court has before it only the limited universe of
evidence available when the motion to remand is filed - i.e.,
the notice of removal and accompanying documents.”
Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1213 (11th
in this case appears to be based on federal-question
jurisdiction, which extends to “all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is
governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule, '
which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
the record is clear that Plaintiff's state court
Complaint asserts a dispossessory action and does not allege
federal law claims. Defendant asserts in his Notice of
Removal that removal is appropriate based on a perceived
violation of his constitutional rights. Defendant argues
that, because the magistrate court does not conduct jury
trials, Defendant is deprived of his Seventh Amendment
rights. Even if the Defendant's argument were valid,
which it is not,  it is well-settled that federal-question
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint and
that the assertions of defenses or counterclaims based on
federal law cannot confer federal question jurisdiction over
a cause of action. See Beneficial Nat'l Bank v.
Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc.
v. Vornado ...