Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00921/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00921-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tarsha Hunter
Counter Defendant
Trustmark National Bank
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TARSHA HUNTER, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-921-WKW

 ) [WO]

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

On May 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 18) 

to which Defendant Trustmark National Bank timely filed objections (Doc. # 19). 

After de novo consideration of those portions of the Recommendation to which 

Trustmark objected, and in light of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments, 

the court finds that Trustmark’s objections are due to be overruled and the 

Recommendation is due to be adopted.

Trustmark objects to the Recommendation on two bases: (1) the court should 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trustmark’s counterclaim for a state-law 

eviction claim because the court has already decided the issues which are dispositive 

of Trustmark’s counterclaim and because the correct disposition of the counterclaim 

is clear as a matter of state law; and (2) the court has original jurisdiction over the 

counterclaim based upon diversity.

Case 2:15-cv-00921-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Trustmark concedes that the court is vested with discretion to decline to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the Recommendation. 

(Doc. # 19, at 4.) However, it urges the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction 

because it asserts that the court has already decided issues that are dispositive of the 

counterclaim and because the correct disposition of the pending counterclaim is clear 

as a matter of state law.

Contrary to Trustmark’s assertion, the court has not attempted to determine 

Plaintiff’s rights with respect to possession of the property as a tenant or lease-toown tenant. When the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s 

complaint, it was because the factual allegations in the complaint did not support 

Plaintiff’s claims.1 The court has not considered whether Plaintiff has recourse 

under state landlord/tenant law to remain in possession of the home. By exercising 

supplemental jurisdiction here, the court would be engaging in a state law eviction 

action, a matter that is better suited for a state court. This objection is without merit.

Trustmark’s second objection is that the court has original jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that it has met the amount in controversy 

requirement. For this objection, Trustmark makes essentially the same arguments 

																																																												 1 The Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation on February 18, 2016 that 

recommended granting Trustmark’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 9.) The Recommendation was 

adopted by order on March 16, 2016. (Doc. # 10.)

Case 2:15-cv-00921-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 3
3

that the Magistrate Judge considered and rejected.2 Defendant has failed to establish 

the requisite amount in controversy, and this objection is without merit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Trustmark’s Objections (Doc. # 19) are OVERRULED; 

(2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 18) is ADOPTED;

(3) Trustmark’s counterclaim (Doc. # 2) is DISMISSED; and

(4) Trustmark’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. # 13) is DENIED

as moot.

A separate final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 17th day of June, 2016.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

																																																												 2 To the extent that Trustmark now asserts that it is prevented from conveying the title, the 

counterclaim’s prayer for relief seeks possession of the property. (See Doc. # 2, at 7.)

Case 2:15-cv-00921-WKW-WC Document 20 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 3