UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE VAN TEASLEY TRUST, Plaintiff ,

v. JAMES E. BERGER, et al. , Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-223 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Dajuan Hart removed thi s action from the “Landlord an d Tenant Branch” of the Superior Court of the Distric t of Columbia to this Court on February 1, 2017. Dkt. 1 at 1

– 2, 4. Hart asserts that this Cour t has original jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id . at 2. He further alleges that, because th e case “arise[s] under the Fair Debt Collection Practice[s] Act,” he may “remove[] [it] to [this ] Court . . . pursuant to . . . 28 U .S.C. § 1441(a).” Id . On February 13, 2017, this Court issued an order “r equir[ing] [Hart] to show ca use as to why this case should not be remanded to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia f or failure to establish federal jurisdiction.” Dkt. 4. To date, H art has not responded to the Court’s order. 1
Removal to federal court is a ppropriate only when the case migh t have originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court ac tions that originally coul d have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”). Here, thi s Court lacks original jurisdiction

1 The Court mailed copies of its February 13, 2017, Order to Sh ow Cause to each of the three defendants at their addre sses of record. On March 1, 2017, the mailing sent to one of the other defendants, James E. Berger, was returned as undeliverable. See Dkt. 5.2 over Hart’s action. Although Har t asserts that the underlying civil action “arise[ s] under the Fair Debt Collection Practice[s] Act,” Dkt. 1 at 2— i.e. , a federal law—the complaint filed against him in the Landlord and Tenant B ranch of the Superior Court mak es no mention of that statute,

see Dkt. 1 at 4–6. Those courts that have considered the issue, m oreover, have held that the complete preemption doctrine is ina pplicable to the Fair Debt C ollection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), see, e.g. , Virgil v. Reorganized M.W. Co., Inc. , 156 F. Supp. 2d 624, 631–32 (S.D. Miss. 2001); 147 F. Supp. 2d 519, 522 (S.D. Miss. 2001), and, i n any event, Hart has not raised the FDCPA as a defense to thi s landlord-tenant dispute, see Dkt. 1 at 8–12. Accordingly, there is nothing that distinguishes this c ase from the typical case brou ght in landlord and tenant court in the District of Columbia, and ma tters before that court “are no t matters over which this federal district court has orig inal jurisdiction.” Smith Property Holdings One, LP v. Baran , No. 13-cv518, 2013 WL 1819457, at *1 (D.D.C. April 16, 2013). Because “it appears... that [this] case was not properly removed, ” the Court “ must remand it to the state court from which it was removed.” Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 8 (1983) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court will remand this action to the Superior Court of the Distr ict of Columbia. A separate order will issue. /s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge

Date: April 4, 2017