IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

JUDIA ELLIOT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 123-119 ) VINEBROOK HOME, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________________________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION _________________________________________________________ Earlier this summer, Plaintiff removed a dispossessory action filed against her by Vinebrook Home (“Vinebrook”) in the Magistrate Court of Richmond County. See Civil Action Number 123-068 (“CV 123-068”). Ms. Elliot claimed federal question jurisdiction because Vinebrook allegedly violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”),

et seq.

doc. no. 1, pp. 1-4. Ms. Elliot, however, did not state any amount in controversy and provided Georgia addresses for herself and Vinebrook.

On July 11, 2023, the Court remanded the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

doc. nos. 6, 10. Undeterred, Ms. Elliot filed the current case on August 23, 2023, alleging Vinebrook is “rapidly moving to conduct the writ of possession on the disputed property” and requesting an injunction to stop the eviction. (Doc. no. 1, p. 1.) She cites the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) as the basis for federal jurisdiction without alleging an amount in controversy, and again provides Georgia addresses for herself and Vinebrook. (Id. at 1-2.) “[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt

about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp.,

, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). Federal courts must always dismiss cases upon determining that they lack subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of the stage of the proceedings. Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos,

, 1331 n.6 (11th Cir. 2001). To invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, a plaintiff must properly “allege the jurisdictional facts, according to the nature of the case.” McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,

(1936). “A federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter

jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to

; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,

(11th Cir. 1997). Under

, diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that their cause lies within this limited grant of jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994).

As the Court previously discussed in CV 123-068, Plaintiff has not pled the necessary facts for federal jurisdiction. No federal statute applies to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Rather, “[t]his is a tenant-eviction case that doesn’t belong in federal court.” Gundogdu v. WDF-4 Wood Harbour Park Owner, LLC, No. 21-61003-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2022). Courts within the Eleventh Circuit routinely remand eviction cases as they state no federal claim. See, e.g., id.; Daley Realestate v. Bester, No. CV422-267,

, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2022), adopted by

(S.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2023); Chastain v. Soomro, No. 3:20CV4181-MCR-HTC,

*3 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2020), adopted by

(N.D. Fla. May 7, 2020). Moreover, the UCC does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. Serenade Apartments v. Raye, No. 1:14-CV-03263-AT-LTW, 2014 12860878, at *n.4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 22, 2014) (“The Uniform Commercial Code does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.”); Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Mungaro, No. 1:05-cv-3082,

, at *1-2 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2005) (finding no federal question jurisdiction where defendant claimed federal question jurisdiction based on UCC). Plaintiff has not pled diversity of citizenship and it is obvious there is no such jurisdiction. She lists Georgia addresses for herself and Defendant, and she has not shown the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-2.) For the reasons set forth above, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED AS MOOT, (doc. no. 2), this case be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and this civil action be CLOSED. SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 2023, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA