UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

KOICHI SAITO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-515-SPC-KCD

20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALEXIS G. MOFFAT and ROB CROWN,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER1 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Koichi Saito’s Notice of Removal to United States District Court. (Doc. 1). Although there is no state court complaint attached, Saito has two state court cases pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in Collier County, Florida, 22-CT-1811 (“1811”); 22-SC- 3212 (“3212”), of which the Court takes judicial notice, see Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.,

(11th Cir. 2020). Neither case can be removed to federal court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co.,

(11th Cir. 1999)

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. (“[A] court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well settled that a

federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”). Case 1811 is a criminal case. Saito is a defendant charged with various traffic violations (

(1), 320.261, 322.03(1)). This Court does

not have jurisdiction to hear that criminal case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Univ. of S. Alabama,

. They are empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution or otherwise authorized by

Congress. Taylor v. Appleton,

(11th Cir. 1994). Cases dealing with the violations of state motor vehicle laws are not defined by Article III of the Constitution nor otherwise authorized by Congress.

. So, to the extent that Saito is trying to remove his criminal case,

this Court cannot hear that matter. In case 3212, Saito is a plaintiff in Small Claims Court. The federal removal statute restricts the right of removal to the parties who are defendants.

(a); see also Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car,

(11th Cir. 2002) (“A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)). And the defendant is the party against whom claims are asserted in the original complaint. See Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, No. 6:16-cv-861-Orl-40GJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2016) (citation omitted). Because Saito is the party making the claims against Defendants in case 3212, his removal here is improper (even if this Court had subject matter jurisdiction). Saito thus has no right to remove this action, and the Court must remand the case to Florida state court. See Univ. of S. Ala.,

(“Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, federals courts are directed to construe removal statutes strictly’ and resolve “all doubts about jurisdiction . . . in favor of remand to state court.”). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 31, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record