Opinion ID: 2775035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The Hayeses argue that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1349, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mellon, a national bank that is incorporated and operates under the laws of the United States. Additionally, they contend that, although they cited federal statutes, the district court did not have federal question jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove a claim to federal court “if the case could have been filed in federal court originally.” Hill v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). District courts have 1 This Court reviews de novo whether a district court had federal subject matter jurisdiction following removal. Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp., 408 F.3d 773, 780-81 (11th Cir. 2005). This Court also reviews de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 14-13590 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 3 of 5 “federal question jurisdiction over ‘all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). A claim “arises under” federal law when “the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint” presents a federal question. Id. (quotations omitted). A district court may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the federal “case or controversy,” or, more specifically, “arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with a substantial federal claim.” Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 742-43 (11th Cir. 2006); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Additionally, “[t]he district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action by or against any corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress, unless the United States is the owner of more than one-half of its capital stock.” 28 U.S.C. § 1349. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Hayes’s complaint. The complaint alleged violations of several federal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e), and Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641. The court could also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying state law claims, since both the state and federal claims were based on the same allegations regarding the Hayes’s Adjustable Rate Mortgage. Further, § 1349 did not preclude removal of the case to federal court, because the defendants at no time 3 Case: 14-13590 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 4 of 5 alleged the sole basis for federal jurisdiction was a company’s “incorporation by or under an Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1349. Instead, they correctly argued the district court had jurisdiction over the various claims in the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367, 1441. Therefore, the defendants properly removed the case to federal court. Parker, 468 F.3d at 742-43; Hill, 364 F.3d at 1314.