United States District Court, D. Maryland
DIANE S. ROSENBERG, et al.., Plaintiffs,
DARYL GREEN, Defendant.
J. Messitte United States District Judge
Defendant Daryl Green has attempted to remove this
foreclosure action from the Circuit Court for Prince Georgess
County. Plaintiffs ask the Court to remand to state court and
grant attorney's fees. For the following reasons, the
Court will GRANT Plaintiffs" Motion to
Remand, except as to attorneyss fees (ECF No. 52).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
action arises from a foreclosure proceeding initiated by
Plaintiffs against Green in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County in June 2015. Nearly two years later, on
May 15. 2017, Green tiled a Notice of Removal, attempting to
remove the case to this Court. In his Notice of Removal,
Green raises several counterclaims alleging violations of
various federal consumer protection statutes. Shortly after
removing the case, Green tiled a Motion for Protection and
Other Relief (ECF No. 50), in which he states the state court
held "secret" hearings after removal and
baekdated" the hearing dates on the docket. ECF No. 50.
He asks the Court to vacate the state court orders and
provide other injunctive relief. Id. at 3.
filed a Motion to Remand the case based on improper removal
on June 2, 2017, and request attorneyss fees. Green has filed
an Opposition (ECF No. 53).
removing party bears the burden of proving that a federal
court has jurisdiction. Lexington Mkt. v. Desman
Assort., 598 F.Supp.2d 707, 709 (D. Md. 2009) (atmg
Lloyd v. General Motors Corp., 560 F.Supp.2d 420, 422
(D. Md. 2008)). Because of the significant federalism
concerns raised by lifting cases from state court, removal
jurisdiction is to be narrowly interpreted and district
courts must resolve all doubts in favor ofreman..
a proceeding must typically be removed within 30 days of the
receipt of the initial pleading by the defendan.. 28 U.S.C. S
1446 (b). When a defendant fails to timely remove a case, the
right to remove is forfeited. See McKinney v. Bd. of
Trustees of Mayland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 925 (4th
begin, Green's removal of the foreclosure proceeding is
untimely. See 28 U.S.C. S 1446(b). His notice of
removal was filed almost two years after the initiation of
the state foreclosure action and more than a year after Green
filed his Motion to Dismiss in state court. This is well
after the 30 day deadline for removal, id., and
Green does not assert good cause for untimely removal.
event, even if removal were timely, Green has not met his
burden of proving the Court has jurisdiction. A counterclaim
filed within the foreclosure proceeding does not create
federal question jurisdiction. See Cohn v. Charles,
857 F.Supp.2d 544, 548 (D. Md. 2012). Rather, "the
federal question must be presented by plaintiffs complaint as
it stands at the time the petition for removal is
filed." Herman v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins.
Co., 842 F.Supp.2d 851, 853(D. Md. 2012). Thus,
Green's federal counterclaims are insufficient to
establish federal question jurisdiction. Additionally, Green
has failed to prove diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
contend that four of them are citizens of Maryland. ECF No.
52-1 at 3. Because Green is also a citizen of Maryland, this
destroys complete diversity. Green has not contested
Plaintiffs' assertion and has therefore failed to meet
his burden of establishing federal
the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, it must
remand to state court. Green's Motion for Other Relief
(ECF No. 50) is therefore dismissed as MOOT.
foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (ECF No.
52) is GRANTED, and the case is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Prince
Georgess County. Plaintiffs" request for attorney's
fees is DENIED. Greenss Motion for