Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jordan Powell, Petitioner v. JBG Smith Properties, LP First Residences, et al.

No.

3fn tfje Supreme Court of tfje fHmtetr States?

JBG Smith Properties, lp First Residences,

PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT

v.

Jordan Powell,

petitioner

v.

United States Small Business Administration,

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT RESPONDENT

„ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

APPENDIX

JORDAN POWELL

1263 1st Street, SE, 523

Washington, D.C. 20003

(202)503-5284

JTTP@PM.ME

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Court of appeals en banc rehearing order

la

July 29,2024..............................................

Appendix B:

Court of appeals order on stay and rehearing

July 29,2024.................................................... 2a

Appendix C:

Superior court notice to SBA

.3a

July 23,2024..........................

Appendix D:

Court of appeals judgement

4a

June 5, 2024.........................

Appendix E:

District court order

7a

December 14,2024

Appendix F:

Notice of removal

10a

December 8,2024.

Appendix G:

Superior court notice to SBA

14a

December 8,2024...................

Appendix H:

Event and orders of the superior court

16a

Filed: July 26,2023................................

Appendix I:

Preceding case dismissed by the superior court

20a

March 10,2023,

Appendix J:

Relevant preceding case record

21a

January 31,2023.......................

la

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRUIT

No. 24-5023

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Appellee,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee,

Filed: July 29,2024

SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON,

MILLETT, PILLARD, WILKINS, KATSAS, RAO,

WALKER, CHILDS, PAN, and GARCIA, Circuit

Judges.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en

banc, and the absence of a request by any member of

the court for a vote, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: Daniel J. Reidy, Deputy Clerk

2a

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRUIT

No. 24-5023

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Appellee,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee,

Filed: July 29,2024

WILKINS, CHILDS, and PAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing and

the motion to stay, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to stay be

dismissed as moot.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: Daniel J. Reidy, Deputy Clerk

3a

APPENDIX C

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2022-LTB-007524

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL, et al.,

Defendant,

Filed: July 13,2024

NOTICE

Superior Court of the

District of Columbia

510 4th St NW, Room 110

Washington DC 20001

U.S. Small Business

Administration

409 3rd St SW

Washington DC 20024

You are named in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia. If you cannot appear at the

hearing, please contact the Clerk’s Office immediately

for more information. If Plaintiff does not participate,

the case may be dismissed. If Defendant does not

4a

participate, default or judgment may be entered.

Case Caption: JBG Smith Properties, LP First

Residences v. Jordan Powell, et al.

To: U.S. Small Business Administration

Case Number: 2023-LTB-007524

NOTICE OF REMOTE STATUS HEARING

Your case is scheduled for a(n) Remote Status Hearing

on 07/31/2024; at 11:00 AM in Remote Courtroom B-52.

5s

APPENDIX D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRUIT

No. 24-5023

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Appellee,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Appellee,

Filed: June 5,2024

WILKINS, CHILDS, and PAN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the

United States District Court for the District of

Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed.

R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal be

dismissed. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that this

court may exercise appellate jurisdiction over the

district court’s order remanding to the D.C. Superior

Court the landlord-tenant case that appellant removed.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); Republic of Venezuela v.

6a

Philip Morris Inc., 287 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2002);

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). While 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) permits

review of remand orders issued in certain cases that

are removed pursuant to § 1442 or § 1443, appellant did

not purport in his notice of removal to remove the case

pursuant to § 1442 or § 1443. See Denizen Dev., L.L.C.

v. Saxon, 850 F. App’x 7,8 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will

not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold

issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after

resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or

petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.

41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: Daniel J. Reidy, Deputy Clerk

7a

APPENDIX E

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 23-3663

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Defendant,

Filed: December 14, 2023

HOWELL, United States District Judge.

ORDER

Jordan Powell is the defendant in a matter pending

before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,

Civil Division, Landlord and Tenant Branch. See JBG

Smith Properties, LP First Residences v. Powell, No.

2023-LTB-007524 (D.C. Super. Ct. filed July 26, 2023).

This matter is before the Court on Powell’s notice of

removal. ECF No. 1.

Generally, a defendant in a civil action brought in a

State court may remove the action to a federal district

court if the action is one over which the federal district

courts have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);

see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)

(“Only state-court actions that originally could have

been filed in federal court may be removed to federal

8a

court by the defendant”)- Federal district courts have

jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, see

28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over civil actions where the

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is

between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a). The Superior Court of the District of Columbia

is considered a State court for purposes of the removal

statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1451(1).

Powell argues that this landlord tenant action is

removable because he had filed in the Superior Court a

motion for joinder of the Small Business

Administration (“SBA”) and a third-party complaint

against the SBA. Plaintiff cannot establish jurisdiction

just by bringing, or attempting to bring, a federal

government agency into the case. “The presence or

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by

the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that

federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question

is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly

pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. It is

apparent that the plaintiffs Verified Complaint for

Possession of Real Property, see ECF No. 1-2 at 4-6,

neither raises a federal question nor demonstrates

diversity jurisdiction, as both parties reside or conduct

business in the District of Columbia. Even if there were

a jurisdictional basis for removal, this Court declines to

interrupt or intervene in an ongoing Superior Court

proceeding. See District Properties Assocs. v. District of

Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he

doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its

progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in

ongoing state judicial proceedings”).

9a

“Courts in this circuit have construed removal

jurisdiction strictly, favoring remand where the

propriety of removal is unclear,” Ballard v. District of

Columbia, 813 F. Supp. 2d 34, 38 (D.D.C. 2011), and if

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

the case, the case must be remanded, 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). Absent a showing that a federal district court

has original jurisdiction over the landlord-tenant

matter, removal is not proper.

It is hereby

ORDERED that Powell’s motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED; it is

further

ORDERED that Powell’s motion for CM/ECF

password, ECF No. 4, is DENIED as moot; and it is

further

ORDERED that this matter be REMANDED

FORTHWITH to the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia.

The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this case.

SO ORDERED.

BERYL A. HOWELL

United States District Judge

10a

APPENDIX F

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 23-3663

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Defendant,

Filed: December 8,2023

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 81, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), §

1441(c)(1), § 1441(f), § 1446(a), § 1446(b)(3), and 1446(d)

for removal to this court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, 706, and 15 U.S.C. § 634 the

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff makes this short and

plain statement of the grounds for removal:

1. On December 4, 2023 the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia docketed a motion for joinder of a

third-party complaint by the Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff involving the United States Small Business

Administration (SBA) concerning rights denied by

impermissible retroactivity. In order for this motion to

be considered, The Defendant elected to deny consent

for hearing by a magistrate judge in the Landlord and

11a

Tenant Branch for consideration of the motion by an

associate judge under Rule 13-1 of the Rules for the

Superior Court of District of Columbia Landlord and

Tenant Branch consistent with the local rules of civil

procedure. Following an initial hearing, the case was

certified to the Civil Action Branch for a status hearing

including consideration of the motion, by Civil II Judge

Scott—scheduled for January 19,2024.

2. On December 5, 2023 the Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff received a written copy of the Notice of

Remote Status Hearing from the court by electronic

download from the docket of “Events and Orders of the

Court” under Case no. 2023-LTB-007524.

3. Provided the motion by the Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff concerns joinder of the SBA, a United States

agency under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal

courts, and a copy of a scheduling 'order' by the

Superior Court has been received by the

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, this case has become

removable provided certification to a judge capable of

considering the motion follows Local Rule 18 where

also the motion involves a party under the exclusive

jurisdiction of federal courts. Accordingly, removal was

first ascertained with requisite certainty. 28 U.S.C. §

1446(b)(3) provides that “if the case stated by the initial

pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be

filed within thirty 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.” As provided here:

12a

an

Paper" is defined as a written or printed

document or instrument. "Receipt" is defined as

the act of receiving; also, the fact of receiving or

being received; that which is received. "Receive"

is similarly defined as to take into possession and

control; accept custody of. "Copy" is defined as

the transcript or double of an original writing.

"Ascertain" means to make certain, exact, or

precise or to find out or learn with certainty.

Thus, "ascertain" requires a greater level of

certainty or that the facts supporting

removability be stated unequivocally. The

information supporting removal in a copy of an

amended pleading, motion, order or other paper

under 28 U.S;C.S. § 1446(b)(3) must be

unequivocally clear and certain to start the time

limit running."See Morgan v. Huntington

Ingalls, 879 F.3d 602,604.

4. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) requires "that

the case is one which is or has become removable"—and

this is true even when "the case stated by the initial

pleading is not removable.” See Payroll, LLC v. Botany

Bay, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186064, *7. See also:

“For purposes of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(3), a pleading is

a formal written statement of accusation or defense

presented by the parties alternately in an action at law.

A motion is primarily an application for a rule or order

made viva voce to a court or judge, but the term is

generally employed with reference to all such

applications, whether written or oral. An order is a

mandate, precept; a command or direction

authoritatively given; a rule or regulation.... Every

13a

direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing,

and not included in a judgment.” See Morgan v.

Huntington Ingalls, 879 F.3d 602, 604.

Date: December 6,2023

Respectfully Submitted,

r/s/1

Jordan T.T. Powell

1263 1st Street, SE, 523

Washington, D.C. 20003

T: 202.503.5284

E: Jttp@pm.me

14a

APPENDIX G

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2022-LTB-007524

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Defendant,

v.

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant,

Filed: December 8,2023

NOTICE

Superior Court of the

District of Columbia

510 4th St NW, Room 110

Washington DC 20001

U.S. Small Business

Administration

409 3rd St SW

Washington DC 20024

You are named in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia. If you cannot appear at the

hearing, please contact the Clerk’s Office immediately

15a

for more information. If Plaintiff does not participate,

the case may be dismissed. If Defendant does not

participate, default or judgment may be entered.

Case Caption: JBG Smith Properties, LP First

Residences v. Jordan Powell

To: U.S. Small Business Administration

Case Number: 2023-LTB-007524

NOTICE OF REMOTE STATUS HEARING

Your case is scheduled for a(n) Remote Status Hearing

on 01/19/2024; at 11:00 AM in Remote Courtroom 219.

16a

APPENDIX H

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2022-LTB-8590

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Defendant,

v.

UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant,

Initial Filing: July 26,2023

SCOTT, Associate Judge

EVENTS AND ORDERS OF THE COURT

07/26/2023

Complaint Filed

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY FORM 1A

Filed By: Plaintiff JBG SMITH

PROPERTIES, LP FIRST RESIDENCES

07/27/2023

Initial Hearing Notice and Instructions for LT

[Remote]

07/27/2023

Notice

17a

09/08/2023

Affidavit/Declaration of Service: Personal Service

Docketed On: 09/12/2023

Filed By: Plaintiff JBG SMITH

PROPERTIES, LP FIRST RESIDENCES

Served On: Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

12/03/2023

Motion Filed (Judicial Officer: Scott, Ebony M)

Docketed on: 12/04/2023

Filed by: Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

[Document Selector **CLICKED**

1. Motion Filed (Motion to Join

Third-Party Complaint).pdf

2. Third Party Complaint (Superior

Court).pdf

3. Exhibit A (Third-Party

Complaint).pdf]

12/04/2023

Remote Initial Hearing (9:00 AM)

MINUTES - 12/04/2023

Consent Denied to Have Case Heard

by a Magistrate Judge Party:

Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

Held and Completed;

Journal Entry Details:

COURTSMART. REMOTE. Plaintiff

counsel Rigerpresent via WebEx.

Defendant Powell present via WebEx.

Defendant denied consent to magistrate

judge. Case certified to judge E. Scott. Case

continued to 1/19/2024 at 11:00am fora

status hearing in courtroom 219. All rights

reserved.;

Parties Present:

Primary Attorney Polito, Melissa S

Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

Held and Completed

12/04/2023

Consent Denied to Have Case Heard by a

Magistrate Judge

Party: Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

c

18a

12/08/2023

Notice of Removal to US District Court

USDC Number: l:23-cv-03663

01/19/2024

CANCELED Remote Status Hearing (11:00 AM)

(Judicial Officer: Scott, Ebony M)

Vacated [initial notices sent 12/04/23 (Powell

and Polito) and 12/08/23 (SBA)]

04/09/2024

Notice

04/09/2024

Notice of Removal Processed and Forwarded to

USDC

04/09/2024

Case Closed. Notice of Removal. Notices Mailed

06/12/2024

Notice to Court (Praecipe) Filed

PRAECIPE REQUESTING STATUS

CONFERENCE FILED

Docketed on: 06/13/2024

Filed by: Plaintiff JBG SMITH

PROPERTIES, LP FIRST RESIDENCES

07/31/2024

Remote Status Hearing (11:00 AM)

MINUTES - 07/31/2024

Consent Denied to Have Case Heard

by a Magistrate Judge Party:

Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

Held and Completed

Journal Entry Details:

COURTSMART. REMOTE. Plaintiff

counsel Cash present via WebEx. Defendant

Powell present via WebEx. Defendant

denied consent to magistrate judge. Case

certified to judge E. Scott. Case continued to

10/25/2024 at 11:00am fora status hearing in

courtroom 219.;

Parties Present:

Primary Attorney Polito, Melissa S

Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

19a

Held and Completed

07/31/2024

Consent Denied to Have Case Heard by a

Magistrate Judge

Party: Defendant POWELL, JORDAN

10/25/2024 Remote Status Hearing (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer:

Scott, Ebony M)

\

c.

20a

APPENDIX I

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2022-LTB-8590

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Defendant,

Date: March 10,2023

KRAVITZ, Associate Judge

STATUS HEARING

Case DISMISSED. Continuance MOOT.

Case SEALED.*

*See D.C. Code §42-3505.09(a)(l): “(a) The Superior Court of the

District of Columbia ("Superior Court") shall seal all court records

relating to an eviction proceeding: (1) If the eviction proceeding

does not result in a judgment for possession in favor of the housing

provider, 30 days after the final resolution of the eviction

proceeding.”

21a

APPENDIX J

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2022-LTB-8590

JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, LP FIRST

RESIDENCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORDAN POWELL,

Defendant,

Filed: January 31,2023

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Details: “Case # 2022-LTB-008590 - Envelope # 33725”

Submitted: “01/31/2023 6:10 PM”

Filing Code: “Motion for Continuance”

Description: “Application for Continuance”

By: “Jordan Thomas Taylor Powell”

Username: “jttp@pm.me”

Lead Document: “January 31 2023 Complete

Application for Continuance.pdf”

Excerpt: “...[and] the Small Business

Administration ... who's also ultimately

responsible for this.... Without a continuance, I

may complete an answer form with attachments,

a motion form for removal to U.S. District Court,

a Superior court rule 12 dismissal motion for

failure to join another party, a Superior court

rule 14 third-party practice claim”

22a

Attachment: “2023_Powell_Petition for Writ of

Mandamus_Working Copy.pdf’

Excerpt: “the original June 16,2020 [SBA] loan

agreement... the Biden Administration's actions

and/or omissions since that time, outlined here,

have further degraded the Petitioner and the

Company and provide cause....” p. 51.

Attachment: “Immediate Re[s]ponse to Rent Payment

Notice.pdf”

Excerpt: “To ...<dmoore@jbgsmith.com>

Date Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 12:46 PM

Friday, September 16th, 2022 at 12:46 PM

...I got yesterdays notice on my door. The timing

is interesting since I sent the email below just a

few hours before....

Forwarded message

From: Jordan

Powell<jordan@pricecheekpay.com> Date: On

Thu, Sep 15,2022 at 2:51 PM Subject: Fwd:

URGENT: 749 Days of Ongoing Delay in an

EMERGENCY RE: Modification to SBA

Disaster Loan Number: 6360447902 To:

PDCRecons@sba.gov

<PDCRecons@sba.gov>,PDC Reconsideration

<PDC. Reconsideration@sba.gov>

Cc: isabella.guzman@sba.gov

<isabella.guzman@sba.gov>

Dear Administrator Guzman,

It has been 749 days since my initial increase

request, dated August 27th 2020. Your

immediate action is urgently necessary....”

RECEIVED

SUPREME COURT OE THE

US POLICE OFFICE.r'

20211 OCT 21 AM Ih 21

!

!

!

LJ~S7£