Summary
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends remanding a removed Georgia dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The recommendation concludes that the state-law possession action does not present a federal question, and that supplemental jurisdiction is unavailable because the court lacks original jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Georgia dispossessory action was removable based on federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Whether Defendant's federal defenses or anticipated counterclaims could create federal-question jurisdiction.
- Whether the federal court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state dispossessory action.
- Whether the action should be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The dispossessory action did not arise under federal law because Plaintiff's claim sought possession of the premises under state law and did not present a federal question on the face of the complaint.
- A defendant cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by asserting federal defenses or relying on an actual or anticipated federal counterclaim.
- The court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the dispossessory action because it lacked original jurisdiction over any claim in the action.
- When a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, it must remand the action to state court.
Key quotations
“But a federal court is obligated to inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking, and it should do so at the “earliest possible stage in the proceedings.”” (410)
“‘If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, [then] the case shall be remanded’ to the state court [] whence it came.” (410)
“Federal courts are further directed to construe removal statutes strictly, and “all doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.””
Factual background
Sugarloaf Apartments-Patrician LLC filed a dispossessory action against Jaquise Reshannon Jones in the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, concerning premises located at 3203 Woodiron Drive, Duluth, Georgia. Jones removed the action and asserted that the dispossessory proceeding violated various federal statutes, including the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint appeared to seek only possession of the premises under state law.
Procedural history
On or about May 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a dispossessory action against Defendant in the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia concerning residential premises in Duluth, Georgia. Defendant filed a notice of removal asserting federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction based on alleged violations of federal law. The federal court determined that the underlying action presented only a state-law claim for possession and recommended remand.
Remand instructions
Remand the case to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendant's IFP application is granted for remand purposes only, and the Clerk is directed to terminate the reference to the magistrate judge.