Court Opinion

ID: 9444446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:01:15.908511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.835926
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11150   Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 08/03/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-11150
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      PRESTIGE HOME INVESTMENTS, LLC,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
      versus
      SUE V. HOPKINS,
      THOMAS HOPKINS,
      DAVID DASILVA,

                                                Defendants-Appellants.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-11150     Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 08/03/2023     Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11150

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01088-AT
                          ____________________

      Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             We issued a jurisdictional question asking the parties to ad-
      dress whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s
      order remanding the action to Georgia state court and specifically
      whether the action was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 or § 1443.
      None of the parties have filed a response to the jurisdictional ques-
      tion, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
              Upon our review of the record, we DISMISS this appeal for
      lack of jurisdiction. Because the district court based its remand or-
      der on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, our review is barred
      under § 1447(d). See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); New v. Sports & Recre-
      ation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997).
             Further, no exception applies to this jurisdictional bar be-
      cause this action was not removed under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442
      or 1443. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1443, 1447(d). While Appellants
      asserted that Appellee violated their civil rights by initiating this
      dispossessory action, they did not allege that the state court pre-
      vented them from raising that assertion in a defense or counter-
      claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) (permitting removal by parties who
      are “denied, or cannot enforce in the courts of such state a right
      under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the
      United States”). Indeed, Appellants raised the claim in their answer
USCA11 Case: 23-11150    Document: 7-1    Date Filed: 08/03/2023   Page: 3 of 3

      23-11150             Opinion of the Court                      3

      filed in the state court one day before they removed the action.
      Moreover, although Appellants cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 as
      their bases of removal, they did not expressly cite § 1443.
            All pending motions are DENIED as moot.