# Glenville Homes III v. Cox

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · August 26, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10664547

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 26, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10664547

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that, pursuant to the well-pleaded-complaint rule, a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for a federal court’s “arising under’ jurisdiction

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

GLENVILLE HOMES, et al., ) CASE NO. 1:24 CV 1048
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
LEARIA COX, )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant. ) AND ORDER

Pro se defendant Learia Cox filed this removal action against Glenville Homes, Famicos
Foundation, Famicos Foundation Board Members, City of Cleveland, Judge Mona Scott, Daniel
Burns, and Magistrate Mark Wiseman. (ECF Nos. 1, 3). Ms. Cox filed two documents purporting
to be notices of removal. In the documents, Ms. Cox appears to request this Court remove her
state court eviction action from the Cleveland Municipal Court. She states that the basis for this
request is her amended counterclaim, in which Ms. Cox alleges defendants violated her
constitutional rights during the state court action. (/d.).
A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a state court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have
original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or that
involve parties of diverse citizenship and exceed $75,000 in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that the district court has original
jurisdiction. Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 375 (6th Cir. 2007). And “because
lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation
in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in
favor of remand.” Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549-50 (6th Cir. 2006)
(alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864-65, 33 V.I. 385 (3d Cir.
1996)).
Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is present only when a federal
question appears “on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded Complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Federal counterclaims
and defenses are “inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction,” and do not provide a basis for
removal. Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 156 L. Ed. 2d 1
(2003) (“To determine whether the claim arises under federal law, we examine the ‘well
pleaded’ allegations of the complaint and ignore potential defenses . . . .”); see also Holmes
Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831-32, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 153 L.
Ed. 2d 13 (2002) (finding that, pursuant to the well-pleaded-complaint rule, a counterclaim
cannot serve as the basis for a federal court’s “arising under’ jurisdiction).
To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the following pleading
requirements must be met: (1) the defendant or defendants must file in the district court a notice
of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a
short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, along with a copy of all pleadings and
orders served upon the defendant or defendants; and (2) the notice of removal must be filed

-2-

within 30 days of receiving the complaint or summons, whichever period is shorter, or within 30
days of receiving an amended pleading, motion, order, or “other paper” from which the
removability of the action may first be ascertained. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and (b).
As an initial matter, this action has not been properly removed. The only documents filed
in this case are Ms. Cox’s “removal” and her “amended removal.” (See ECF Nos. 1, 3). Ms. Cox
has failed to file any pleadings from Cleveland Municipal Court. And it is not apparent from the
removal notices that Ms. Cox has timely filed a notice of removal. Additionally, Ms. Cox could
not have brought this action originally in federal court. Diversity of citizenship is not present,
and from the limited information provided in Ms. Cox’s removal documents, this action appears
to concern a state court eviction action. Such determinations are a matter of state law. And there
is no suggestion of a federal claim in the documents filed in this action. Moreover, Ms. Cox’s
counterclaims do not provide a basis for removal. Beneficial Nat'l Bank, 539 U.S. at 6. There is
therefore no valid basis for an exercise of federal removal jurisdiction in this case.
Accordingly, because Ms. Cox did not properly remove the action from the Cleveland
Municipal Court, it is not necessary to remand the matter to state court. The Court therefore
dismisses this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from
this decision may not be taken in good faith.
IT ISSO ORDERED. | |
DONALD C. NUGEN
United States District Judge
DATED: Ay wif 2, 202y

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10664547. Public record. Not legal advice.