Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_10-cv-01001/USCOURTS-alnd-2_10-cv-01001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HALL HOUSING INVESTMENTS, )

INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 10-S-01001-S

)

ARTHUR I. RADCLIFF, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On May 5, 2010, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was

entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen days in which to file objections

to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No timely objections were

filed by either party. Defendant, however, did file an amended notice of removal and,

five days late, objections.1

In his amended notice of removal, defendant attempts to predicate jurisdiction

on additional federal statutes not invoked in the original notice of removal,

specifically the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

2

Under the FDCPA, a “debt collector” is a business with a principal purpose of

See doc. nos. 5 and 9. 1

The relevant part of this statute provides, “[t]he district courts shall have original 2

jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under anyAct of Congress regulating commerce

or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies: . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a).

Page 1 of 3

FILED

 2010 May-27 PM 04:21

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:10-cv-01001-CLS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 3
collecting debts, or an entity that regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed

or allegedly owed to another. Plaintiff is not a “debt collector” within the meaning

of the FDCPA merely because it owns apartment complexes and collects rent from

its tenants or initiates eviction proceedings. See Cook v. Hamrick, 278 F. Supp. 2d

1202 (D. Colo. 2003) (FDCPA claim by tenant against attorney hired by landlord to

institute unlawful detainer proceedings dismissed for failure to state claim);

Alexander v. Omega Mgmt., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (D. Minn. 1999) (property

management company did not operate business with principal purpose of collection

of debts and was not a “debt collector” within meaning of FDCPA; management

company performed services unrelated to collecting debts, and lessthan three percent

of its total operations were devoted to collection of assessments and past due

accounts); Aubert v. American Gen. Fin., 137 F.2d 976 (7th Cir. 1998) (creditors who

collect debts in their own name are not “debt collectors” subject to FDCPA).

As for defendant’s invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1337, thisstatute is not a separate

grant of jurisdiction; the litigant must rely on a substantive federal law. See, e.g.,

Cooper v. Baldwin-Bellmore Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 390 F.Supp. 874 (E.D.N.Y.

1975). As discussed above, defendant has no claim under the FDCPA. Nor has he

grounded his complaint against plaintiff or the notice of removal on any other federal

statute regulating commerce. Therefore, the amended notice ofremoval does not alter

the conclusion of the court.

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:10-cv-01001-CLS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 3
In his objections, defendant relies on the amended notice of removal and also

attempts to argue the merits of his case. The amended notice of removal, as

3

discussed above, isinsufficient to provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction; thus,

the court cannot reach the merits of the case. Therefore, defendant’s objections fail

to alter the conclusions of the court.

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate

judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge,

and it is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this action is due

to be, and it hereby is, REMANDED to the District Court of Jefferson County,

Alabama, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED,

ADJUDGEDand DECREEDthat defendant’s request to proceed without prepayment

of fees (doc. no. 2) is due to be, and it hereby is, DENIED. It is finally ORDERED,

ADJUDGED and DECREED that defendant’s “complaint” (doc. no. 3) is due to be,

and it hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is directed to close

this file. Costs are taxed to defendant.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2010.

______________________________

United States District Judge

Strangely, defendant also objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that the Alabama Court 3

of Civil Appeals issued an opinion in this case prior to defendant’s attempt to remove it; yet, just

such an opinion was included by defendant as an attachment to his original notice of removal. See

doc. no. 1-2 at 34.

Page 3 of 3

Case 2:10-cv-01001-CLS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3