United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
removed this case from Georgia Superior Court of Bryan County
(doc. 1), defendants seek to dismiss plaintiff's
Complaint challenging the foreclosure sale of her Richmond
Hill property for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Doc. 4. Plaintiff, contending this court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, asks the
Court to remand the matter back to state court. Doc. 10 at 1.
She has not expressly opposed the motion to dismiss, nor does
she provide any argument about why this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also doc.
12-1 (offering her version of the underlying facts to support
her contention that she lacks “a contract” with
one of the moving defendants, and requesting “the right
to subrogation, ” trial, punitive damages, and that
defendants be forced to “buy back [her] property . . .
and return it to [her] free from all encumbrances.”).
the deficiencies in plaintiff's filings, this Court has
an obligation to determine whether subject matter
jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1441, a defendant may remove an action filed in state court
over which this Court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). Among the bases for that original
jurisdiction, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to
hear cases involving completely diverse parties where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Defendants have explained their respective
citizenships, and, beyond her demand to return to state
court, Plaintiff does not dispute that both requirements are
met. Docs. 10 & 12; see doc. 1 at 4-8 (complete
diversity of citizenship exists between plaintiff (a Bryan
County, Georgia resident) and defendants (citizens of
Minnesota, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia),
and she seeks monetary damages of at least $100, 000); doc.
11 (defendants' response to plaintiff's remand
argument). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction arising
from the parties' diversity of citizenship, and
plaintiff's request to remand (doc. 10) should be
the motion to dismiss, the entire case arises from the
foreclosure sale of plaintiff's Richmond Hill, Georgia,
property. See doc. 1 at ¶ 3. Plaintiff owed
money on a 2001 loan, secured by a deed to the property, that
she failed to repay. Doc. 4-1 at 3; see doc. 4 at
Exh. B. The loan, originally serviced by Conseco Financing
Servicing Corp., was assigned to U.S. Bank in 2017.
Id. at Exh. A. Plaintiff having defaulted on the
loan, the lender accelerated the debt owed and initiated
non-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the property.
Williams-Fordjour filed her Complaint in Bryan County,
Georgia, on September 1, 2017, apparently seeking to halt the
sale of her property. It was sold, however, on September 5,
Complaint alleges claims for lack of standing/wrongful
foreclosure; fraud in the concealment; fraud in the
inducement; unconscionable contract; breach of contract;
breach of fiduciary duty; quiet title; declaratory judgment;
a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. See
generaly doc. 1-1. Williams-Fordjour has not opposed
defendants' motion to dismiss her Complaint for failure
to state a claim. As she is pro se and may have
believed that her request to remand sufficiently addressed
the issues raised in the motion to dismiss, plaintiff will be
given another chance to oppose defendants' motion. She
may file a “Response” to that motion within 14
days of service of this Report and Recommendation.
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a
copy on all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542,
545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 Plaintiff is advised that any
“Objection” to this R&R must be filed as a
separate document and not merged with any
“Response” she may wish to make to