Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180621_0002359.MFL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:25:07+00:00

Document:
ERIC WOOTEN and COLENNA KONKLE, Defendants.
Pending before the Court is pro se Defendants Eric Wooten and Colenna Konkle's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). There are multiple problems with this case. Here, I focus solely on the Court's lack of jurisdiction, and respectfully recommend that the case be REMANDED for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs Donald and Nancy Fiegel filed a complaint in county court to evict Defendants and for damages for nonpayment of rent (Doc. 1-2 at 1). Plaintiffs amended their complaint on May 11, 2018 (Doc. 1-2 at 26; Doc. 2). On May 18, 2018, Defendants filed a pro se answer in county court (Doc. 1-2 at 43; Doc. 3). They sought dismissal based on a defective 3 day notice and asked the court to “set a hearing to determine rent as rent was swapped for work at premises.” (Id.). On June 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal here (Doc. 1), removing this landlord-tenant dispute to this Court. Defendants seek to proceed as paupers (Doc. 4).
1) The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.
3) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.
Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Burns v. Windsor In s . C o ., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[R]emoval statutes are construed narrowly; when the parties dispute jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.”). See also Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[A]ll doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.”). The removing party has the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence and the removing party must present facts establishing its right to remove. Williams v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). When the defendant fails to do so, the case must be remanded. Williams, 269 F.3d at 1321.
Defendants assert that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, due to “Federal Fair Housing, ” and diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a), “as Plaintiff and Defendants live in different States.” Neither claim has merit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 § 1332