Petition for Writ of Certiorari — William P. DeBoskey, Petitioner v. Goshen Mortgage, as Separate Trustee for GDBT 1 Trust 2011-1, et al.

No.

In The

Supreme Court of tlje ©mteii States

William P. DeBoskey

Petitioner

v.

Goshen Mortgage, LLC. et al

Respondents

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United State Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

(Eleventh Circuit No. 24-12314; District Court No. 8:24-00325)

PETITIONER’S APPENDIX

William P. DeBoskey - Pro-se

27035 Old Spring Lake Rd.

Brooksville, Florida 34602

(352) 263-3384

bill27035@gmail.com

Table of Contents

Appendix A...................................................................

A-l

Opinion Affirming Remand..................................................................... ................. A-2

Petitioner's Motion for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc......................A-ll

Order Denying Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.................................. A-33

Appendix B.....................................................................

District Court Order to Remand....................................................

B-l

B-2

Endorsed Order to Show Cause (Timeliness of Removal)................................... B-16

Petitioner’s Response to Order to Show Cause..................................................... B-18

Order to Show Cause (Diversity Jurisdiction).............................

B-27

Petitioner’s Response to Order to Show Cause ..................................................... B-41

Respondent’s Motion to Remand........................ ;............................. ♦..................... B-86

Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Remand..........................

Appendix C.. ........

B-96

C-l

28 U.S. Code § 1254 (1) ....... ............................... C-2

...C-3

28 U.S. Code § 1332(a)(1)....

28 U.S. Code § 1441(a).......................... ......... ,.. C-4

28 U.S. Code § 1447(c).;..

28 U.S. Code § 1447(d)

.C-5

...

...C-6

U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13...;................................................................

C.-7

U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.6......

C-8

;................................ ;................

Appendix A

(Eleventh Circuit Documents)

A-l

Opinion Affirming Remand

Eleventh Circuit

Case No. 24-12314

Date: May 23, 2025

A-2

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

HInfteb JBtates fflnnrf nf Appeals

3[nr fl|e

(Circuit

No. 24-12314

Non-Argument Calendar

GOSHEN MORTGAGE,

as Separate Trustee for GDBT 1 Trust 2011-1,

RED STICK ACQUISITIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

WILLIAM P. DEBOSKEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

A-3

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

2

Page: 2 of 8

24-12314

D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Before Newsom, Branch, and Anderson, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William DeBoskey, proceeding pro se, appeals the district

court’s order remanding this case to state court. DeBoskey had

earlier removed the case to federal court, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441,

1443, and 1446. On appeal, he argues that the state-court plaintiff,

Red Stick Acquisitions, LLC, lacks Article III standing. He also as­

serts that he sufficiendy demonstrated complete diversity of citi­

zenship, and that the district court was therefore wrong to base its

remand order on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Red Stick, in

turn, argues that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, we lack jurisdiction over

DeBoskey’s appeal. We hold that we possess jurisdiction over the

appeal, but we reject all of DeBoskey’s arguments. Accordingly,

the district court’s remand order is affirmed.

I

Our authority to consider DeBoskey’s appeal turns on a

three-step jurisdictional tap dance.1 First, in general, remand or­

ders are reviewable as final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Hunter v. City of Montgomery, 859 F.3d 1329, 1333 (11th Cir. 2017).

But second, there is an exception to this principle: We usually lack

1 We review our own jurisdiction de riovo. Tillis ex rel. Wuenschel v. Brown, 12

F.4th 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2021).

A-4

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

24-12314

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

Page: 3 of 8

3

jurisdiction over a remand order that (1) follows a timely motion

for remand based on a defect other than lack of subject-matter ju­

risdiction or (2) is based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLCv. Hanover Ins.

Co., 995 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2021); Hunter, 859 F.3d at 1333.

And yet, third, there is an exception to the exception: We retain

jurisdiction to review the entire remand order when removal is

based, even if only in part, on § 1442 or § 1443. BPP.L.C. v. Mayor

& City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1537-38 (2021); see 28

U.S.C. § 1447(d). That’s because § 1443 permits a defendant in a

civil state court action to remove the action to federal court if the

action is against a person who is denied or cannot enforce in the

state courts “a right under any law providing for the equal civil

rights of citizens of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). To

remove a case under § 1443, the party need only assert that the case

is removable "pursuant to” or "in accordance with or by reason of’

§ 1443. BPP.L.C., 141 S. Ct. at 1538.

The exception to the exception applies here. Regardless of

whether DeBoskey pleaded sufficient support to ultimately sustain

his removal, his invocation of § 1443 is adequate to permit our re­

view. The district court based its remand order on a lack of subject­

matter jurisdiction, which in the ordinary course would divest us

of appellate jurisdiction. MSP Recovery Claims, 995 F.3d at 1294. But

DeBoskey’s notice of removal referenced the language of § 1443,

explicitly alleging that he "belongfed] to a protected class” and that

he was "denied and [could not] enforce in the courts of Hernando

County Florida the equal rights.” Notice of Removal at 1-3, Doc.

A-5

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

4

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

Page: 4 of 8

24-12314

1. That’s enough. SeeBPP.L.C., 141 S. Ct. at 1538. We accordingly

have jurisdiction to review the entire remand order. Id.

II

Generally, the party invoking federal jurisdiction has the

burden of establishing Article III standing. Mack v. USAA Cas. Ins.

Co., 994 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 2021)? To establish Article III

standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that

was caused by the defendant’s alleged conduct, and (3) can likely

be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Mack, 994 F.3d at

1356. "When a case is removed from state to federal court and the

plaintiffs do not have Article III standing in federal court, the dis­

trict court’s only option is to remand back to state court." Ladies

Mem’lAss’n v. City ofPensacola, 34 F.4th 988, 994 (11th Cir. 2022).

We are not persuaded by DeBoskey’s standing argument.

For starters, it makes little sense for DeBoskey—the party invoking

federal-court jurisdiction—to accuse Red Stick of lacking Article III

standing. Were DeBoskey right, the remedy would be to remand

this lawsuit to state court, LadiesMem’lAss’n, 34 F.4th at 994—pre­

cisely the outcome DeBoskey seeks to avoid. In any event, Red

Stick handily satisfies the elements of Article III standing. The

amended complaint alleged that Red Stick holds a mortgage and a

note, that DeBoskey defaulted on his payments pursuant to the

note, and that he owed Red Stick for the default. The complaint

2 We review de novo whether Article III standing exists. Mack, 994 F.3d at

1356.

A-6

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

24-12314

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

Page: 5 of 8

5

sought foreclosure and reformation of the mortgage, remedies that

would obviously redress Red Stick’s purported injury. So, there’s

no Article III standing defect.

in

A case removed from state to federal district court "shall be

remanded” if the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c).3 Only civil actions for which federal district

courts “have original jurisdiction” may be removed from state to

federal court. Id. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.

386, 393 (1987) (interpreting § 1441 "to authorize removal only

where original federal jurisdiction exists”). District courts have

original diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens

of a different state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires

complete diversity of citizenship between every plaintiff and every

defendant. Triggs v.John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287

(11th Cir. 1998). In general, the removing party bears the burden

of establishing the parties’ citizenship. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.

Comcast SCHHoldings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004).

3 We review de novo issues of removal jurisdiction. Henson v. Ciia-Geigy Corp.,

261 F.3d 1065,1068 (11th Cir. 2001). We review jurisdictional factual findings,

like a party’s citizenship, for clear error. Dudley v. EliLilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909,

911 (11th Cir. 2014). Clear error is highly deferential and requires us to uphold

the district court’s factual determinations so long as they are plausible in light

of the record viewed in its entirety. Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown &- Root Servs.,

572 F.3d 1271,1280 (11th Cir. 2009).

A-7

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

6

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

Page: 6 of 8

24-12314

Determining whether complete diversity exists here is tricky

because Red Stick is a limited liability company. For diversity pur­

poses, an LLC is a citizen in every state in which any of its members

are citizens. Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, Inc. v. Tuskegee

Univ., 663 F.3d 1304, 1305 (Uth Cir. 2011). Generally, to suffi­

ciently allege the citizenships of an LLC, a party must list the citi­

zenships of each member of the LLC. Id. It’s not enough for a

notice of removal to simply identify where the LLC was created or

the location of its principal place of business. Id.; Rolling Greens

MHP, L.P., 374 F.3d at 1022. A party has a "qualified right to juris­

dictional discovery’’ when the facts going to the merits and the dis­

trict court’s jurisdiction are "intertwined and genuinely in dispute.”

ACLU ofFla., Inc. v. City ofSarasota, 859 F.3d 1337,1340-41 (11th Cir.

2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Still, district courts

may properly deny "requests” for jurisdictional discovery when a

party "buried such requests in its briefs,” rather than presenting

them in a motion. United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260,128081 (11th Cir. 2009).

DeBoskey didn’t carry his burden of demonstrating com­

plete diversity between the parties. DeBoskey himself is a Florida

citizen, and so he needed to show that Red Stick had zero Floridacitizen members. But he never listed either Red Stick’s member­

ship, or the citizenship of those members, and it wasn’t clear error

for the district court to find that none of the documents that he

offered plausibly showed that Red Stick had zero Florida-citizen

members. DeBoskey protests that the district court should have

ordered jurisdictional discovery. But he never moved for jurisdic-

A-8

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

24-12314

Document: 38-1

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

Page: 7 of 8

7

tional discovery (instead, he buried a reference to jurisdictional dis­

covery in a response), and the district court had no obligation to

order such discovery sua sponte. See ACLU ofFla., Inc., 859 F.3d at

1340-41; Mazer, 556 F.3d at 1280-81.

DeBoskey also argues that Red Stick isn’t the real party to

the controversy, and so its membership is irrelevant. It’s true that

when analyzing diversity, federal courts must consider only the cit­

izenship of real parties to the controversy, not nominal parties.

Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp, ofAm., 849 F.3d 1313, 1317

(11th Cir. 2017). We refer to the substantive law of the state to

determine whether a party is a real and substantial party to the lit­

igation. See Broyles v. Bayless, 878 F.2d 1400, 1402 (11th Cir. 1989).

In Florida, “[a]n assignee of a mortgage and note assigned as collat­

eral security is the real party in interest, holds legal title to the mort­

gage and the note, and is the proper party” to foreclose the mort­

gage. Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., 862 So. 2d 793,

798 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2003). So, Red Stick is the real party to

the controversy for diversity purposes. That’s because—at least ac­

cording to its pleadings—it holds the mortgage and note, establish­

ing its legal right to seek foreclosure under Florida law. The district

court therefore didn’t err in Concluding that there wasn’t complete

diversity between the parties.4

4 In the district court, DeBoskey suggested that jurisdiction might exist under

§ 1443 or § 1331. On appeal, DeBoskey has abandoned this alternative juris­

dictional path by failing to advance any arguments in support of it. Timson v.

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a possible "independent

A-9

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

Document: 38-1

8

Date Filed: 05/23/2025

Opinion of the Court

Page: 8 of 8

24-12314

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that we have jurisdiction

over this appeal, that Red Stick has Article III standing, and that the

district court did not err in remanding the case to state court for

lack of subj ect-matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction" because "issues not briefed on ap­

peal by apro se litigant are deemed abandoned”).

A-10

Order Denying Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Eleventh Circuit

Case No. 24-12314

Date: July 14, 2025

A-33

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

Document: 43-2

Date Filed: 07/14/2025

Page: 1 of 2

Mntfeb JBtata (Umirt nf Appeals

(Mirant

3Fnr

No. 24-12314

GOSHEN MORTGAGE,

as Separate Trustee for GDBT 1 Trust 2011-1,

RED STICK ACQUISITIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

WILLIAM P. DEBOSKEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

A-34

USCA11 Case: 24-12314

2

Document: 43-2

Date Filed: 07/14/2025

Order of the Court

Page: 2 of 2

24-12314

ON PETITION(S) FOR REHEARING AND PETITION(S) FOR

REHEARING EN BANC

Before Newsom, Branch, and anderson, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED, no judge in

regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court

be polled on rehearing en banc. FRAP 40. The Petition for Panel

Rehearing also is DENIED. FRAP 40.

A-35

Appendix B(District Court Documents)

B-l

Order to Remand

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Case No. 8:24-cv-00325

Date: July 17, 2024

B-2

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

,

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 1 of 13 PagelD 2526

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

GOSHEN MORTGAGE, LLC, as Separate

Trustee for GDBT 1 Trust 2011-1 and

RED STICK ACQUISITIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 8:24-cv-325-WFJ-UAM

v.

WILLIAM P. DEBOSKEY,

UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF WILLIAM P. DEBOSKEY,

UNKNOWN HEIRS OF WILLIAM P. DEBOSKEY,

LORI E. DEBOSKEY, IBERIA BANK, and

UNKNOWN TENANT IN POSSESSION

OF SUBJECT PROPERTY,

Defendants.

________________________________________________ /

ORDER OF REMAND

Before the Court is Plaintiff Red Stick Acquisitions, LLC’s Motion to

Remand (Dkt. 18), the Response of Defendant William P. DeBoskey (Dkt, 22), and

Mr. DeBoskey’s two submissions in response to the Order to Show Cause (Dkts.

24,25).1 After careful consideration of the motion, the submissions; and the entire

file, including the state court docket, the Court concludes the motion is due to be

granted. There is no subject matter jurisdiction.

1 Plaintiff Goshen Mortgage, LLC, as separate Trustee for GDBT 1 Trust 2011-1, is a corporate

entity which may not proceed pro se.

B-3

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 2 of 13 PagelD 2527

t

BACKGROUND

To avoid cross-referencing the Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 23), the pertinent

parts of that order will be republished here.

This is the second time Mr. DeBoskey comes before this specific Court on

matters concerning his Hernando County homestead property.2 The first time,

DeBoskey sued Plaintiff Red Stick Acquisitions, LLC (“Red Stick”) and others in

October 2022 while the foreclosure was pending. DeBoskey v. Red Stick

Acquisitions, LLC, et al., No. 8:22-cv-2427-WFJ-AAS ^DeBoskey I”), aff’d, No.

23-11898 (11th Cir. Jan. 24,2024) (unpublished).3 In setting forth the factual

background here, the Court borrows from orders already entered in DeBoskey I.

Id., Dkts. 24,29, 33.

On May 26,2016, Goshen Mortgage, LLC, as assignee of the mortgage and

note (“Goshen Mortgage”) sued to foreclose on the homestead property.4 In July

2018, Red Stick acquired the note and mortgage and was substituted for Goshen

Mortgage as the plaintiff in the state court foreclosure. Goshen Mortgage, LLC, as

2 This is the third time he has filed in federal court if one includes DeBoskey v. SunTrust

Mortgage, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-1778-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla.), which involves the same homestead

property at 27035 Old Spring Lake Road, Brooksville, Florida.

3 DeBoskey I alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FCDPA”), 15 U.S.C.

§ 1692, et seq., and the Florida Consumer Credit Protection Act (“FCCPA”), Fla. Stat. § 559.55,

et seq. in transactions pertaining to the homestead property.

4 In 2005, DeBoskey refinanced his Hernando County homestead property, and the mortgage was

assigned to Goshen Mortgage in 2014. Thereafter, the Goshen Mortgage assigned to GDBTI

Trust 2011 -I, which entity then assigned to Red Stick.

2

B-4

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 3 of 13 PagelD 2528

Separate Trusteefor GDBT1 Trust 2011-1 v. William P DeBoskey, et al., No.

2016-CA-676 (Fla. :5th Jud. Cir. Ct). Red Stick filed an amended complaint in the

foreclosure action on August 22,2018.

In July 2021, Mr. DeBoskey attempted to amend his answer and

counterclaim in the foreclosure a fifth time to add claims for violations of the

FCDPA and FCCPA. In January 2022, the state circuit court denied any

amendment. Undeterred by the state court’s ruling against him, he came to this

Court for relief on October 23,2022, in DeBoskey I. This Court granted motions to

dismiss the first and second amended complaints. Id., Dkts. 24,29. On January

24,2024, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order of final dismissal. Id., Dkt. 33 at

6 (holding the operative complaint “was either time-barred by the statute of

limitations or failed to state a claim”). Tellingly, Mr. DeBoskey does not explain

the delay given that he filed a lawsuit in this Court in October 2022 involving

arguably similar parties and issues (DeBoskey I), which was long after the 2018

amended complaint was filed in the state court foreclosure.

While DeBoskey I was pending in this Court, the foreclosure case was set

and rescheduled for non-jury trial several times, with the last set trial date of

February 8,2023. The state court docket shows that the February 2023 trial was

continued after numerous filings by Mr. DeBoskey including motions to stay or

continue based on then-pending DeBoskey I and on his desire to secure another

3

B-5

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 4 of 13 PagelD 2529

attorney. He also attempted to recuse the state court judge and appealed the denial

to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The state appellate court treated the appeal as

an extraordinary writ and denied it after briefing. Mr. DeBoskey then sought

review in the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied and dismissed without

mandate effective October 2,2023.

On November 3,2023, Red Stick filed a motion for summary judgment in

the state foreclosure action, which was set for hearing on the morning of February

8,2024. On the eve of the final hearing, Defendant DeBoskey, pro se, removed the

eight-year-old foreclosure action case to this Court. Dkt. 1, Nonetheless, the state

court judge declined to delay the hearing set for February 8. Dkt. 18 at 6. Also on

February 8, Mr. DeBoskey filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the U.S.

Bankruptcy Code: In re: DeBoskey, 8:24-bk-644-RCT (Bankr. M.D. Fla.). Dkt. 18

at 6.

On March 1, Mr. DeBoskey filed in the bankruptcy court a motion to dismiss

his Chapter 13 case and close the estate. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case

without a discharge on March 5. On April 4, the state court judge entered an order

giving notice of and filing the motion and order of dismissal filed in the

bankruptcy case.

On April 23, this Court entered an endorsed order to show cause why this

matter should not be remanded as untimely based on the age of the state court

4

B-6

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 5 of 13 PagelD 2530

action. Dkt. 14 (“The 2016 filing of this lawsuit (and 2018 amended complaint)

appear well out of time for removal.”). On April 30, 2024, DeBoskey filed his

response to the show cause order. Dkt. 21. That same day, Red Stick filed a

motion to remand. Dkt. 18.

After reviewing the voluminous file with over 400 docket entries in the state

court action, this Court issued another order to the removing Defendant, Mr.

DeBoskey, to show cause why this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction by

filing proof of the citizenship of Plaintiff Red Stick Acquisitions, LLC. Dkt. 23.

DeBoskey timely submitted his response together with the transcript of the hearing

held February 8,2024, in state court. Dkts. 24,25. The issue ofjurisdiction is

now before the Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a

case to federal court when the plaintiff’s claim could have been filed in the district

court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095

(11th Cir. 1994). To establish removal jurisdiction, a defendant must show one of

three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction; (2) matters

arising under federal law; or (3) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; see Whitt v. Sherman Int’l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th

Cir. 1998); Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997).

.

5

B-7

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 6 of 13 PagelD 2531

For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000

exclusive of interest and costs and each plaintiff must be a citizen of a state

different from each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As to matters arising under

the laws of the United States, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that a

federal question appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. Whitt, 147 F.3d at

1329. Removal statutes must be narrowly construed in favor of remand, and where

jurisdiction is ambiguous or uncertain, remand is favored. See Bums, 31 F.3d at

1095.

DISCUSSION

Mr. DeBoskey removed a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The first count of the

amended complaint seeks reformation of the mortgage, and the second count seeks

to foreclose the mortgage. The state court action has not reached final judgment.5

The notice of removal cites diversity jurisdiction “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1332” with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00.6 Dkt. 1 at

2. The timeliness issues were addressed in this Court’s prior order. Dkt. 23.

5 Because the mortgage foreclosure here has not reached final judgment, there are no RookerFeldman or other issues mandating remand. See, e.g., US Bank Nat ’I Ass ’n v. Kelly, No. 2:23cv-504-JES-NPM, 2024 WL 260988 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24,2024) (granting remand of a mortgage

foreclosure action after final judgment based on Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,415-16

(1923) andD.C. Ct. ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983)); Federal Nat’l Mortg.

Corp. v. Wilson, No. 2:17-cv-719-FtM-38MRM, 2018 WL 3520937, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12,

2018) (holding that removal of over five-year-old mortgage foreclosure was both jurisdictionally

and procedurally defective; procedural defect raised in timely motion to remand).

6 Diversity jurisdiction is addressed in § 1332, and federal question jurisdiction in § 1331. The

amount in controversy in this case is not at issue.

6

B-8

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 7 of 13 PagelD 2532

Because the 30-day limitation for seeking remand applies only to procedural

defects, and not to “lack of subject matter jurisdiction,”7 the Court ordered Mr.

DeBoskey to address the diversity of citizenship of Plaintiff Red Stick.

Diversity

Mr. DeBoskey is a citizen of Florida, claiming homestead property in this

state. The Court noted in its second show cause order that Red Stick Acquisitions,

LLC is a Florida limited liability company.8

For diversity, each plaintiff must be a citizen of a state different from each

defendant. See St., Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nat‘l Union Fire Ins. Co., 890

F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2018); Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396,1399 (11th Cir.

1974) (holding complete diversity exists when “no party on one side [is] a citizen

of the same State as any party on the other side”). “[A] limited liability company

is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling

Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCHHoldings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Uth

Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Therefore, if any member of Red Stick is a Florida

7 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Kelly, 2024 WL 260988, at *2 (citing § 1447(c)); Koncept Prop. Inc.

v. Scopelliti, 627F. Supp. 3d 1282, (M.D. Fla. 2022) (same).

3 To search for corporate entities such as a limited liability company in Florida, the “sunbiz.org”

site is used to search for the name of the entity. See https://dos.fl.gov/sunbiz/search/. The

address given for the listed registered agent and managers of Red Stick is a Florida address. See

Annual Report dated February 3,2024, at the sunbiz website.

7

B-9

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 8 of 13 PagelD 2533

citizen, then Red Stick is a citizen of Florida and diversity jurisdiction does not

exist.

The burden of demonstrating diversity of citizenship rests with Mr.

DeBoskey as the party invoking federal jurisdiction. Rolling Greens, 374 F.3d at

1022 (holding burden not met where removing party failed to list citizenships of all

members of LLC). The notice of removal fails to list all the members of the

limited liability company along with each member’s citizenship. See Imperial

Fund I, LLC v. Orukotan, No. 21-CV-60162-RAR, 2021 WL 752577, at *4 (S.D.

Fla. Feb. 25,2021) (granting remand where defendant did not list LLC members in

notice of removal and citing Rolling Greens'), dismissed, 2021 WL 2253852 (11th

Cir. Apr. 22,2021). Nor can the Court determine the citizenship of Red Stick from

the face of the 2018 amended complaint in the state court case.

In his response, Mr. DeBoskey argues that Gpshen Mortgage, and not Red

Stick, is the real party in interest. He claims Red Stick has no right to enforce the

note because its claim “is based on highly contested ‘corrective assignments’

executed two years subsequent to the filing of the case.” Dkt. 25 at 3.

Additionally, Mr. DeBoskey contends that Red Stick has different business

addresses across the country. Id. at 7. He relies on public records of Hernando

County, Florida, the State of Oklahoma, and state bar membership records of North

8

B-10

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

Filed 07/17/24

Page 9 of 13 PagelD 2534

Carolina and Louisiana. Id. at 7-9, 29-39. He intimates that Red Stick is a limited

company is more states than Florida.

The record in this removed case shows that in the state court, on July 26,

2018, Goshen Mortgage filed a motion to substitute Red Stick as the plaintiff based

on the assignment of the loan. The short assignment attached to the motion gives

the address for Red Stick: “c/o KC Wilson and Associates, 23041 Avenida De La

Cariota, #230, Laguna Hills, CA 92653.” The assignment does not further identify

the members of Red Stick or delineate of what state Red Stick is a limited

company. It cannot be ruled out that Red Stick was registered in California as a

foreign (Florida) limited liability company.

The state court judge granted the motion and substituted Red Stick as the

plaintiff. As noted in the state court order, the Clerk of Court for Hernando

County, Florida, was required to maintain the original caption or case style,

showing Goshen Mortgage as the plaintiff. On the date this case was removed to

this Court, Red Stick was the sole plaintiff in the state court case.

Nor do the public records incorporated in Mr. DeBoskey’s response rebut

that Plaintiff Red Stick is a Florida limited liability company. He cites to three

assignments of mortgages and interests to Red Stick occurring in the State of

Oklahoma, which assignments list its address as either Laguna Hills, California, or

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Dkt. 25 at 8,34-36. The public corporate records of

9

B-ll

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

2535

Filed 07/17/24

Page 10 of 13 PagelD

California and Louisiana do not show that Red Stick was a limited company in

those states. Notably, all states do not necessarily list foreign limited liability

companies registered to business in those states.9

The Florida corporate records show that as early as 2013, Red Stick was an

active Florida limited liability company with one of its “managing

members/managers” named as Don St. John, with a Riviera Beach, Florida,

address.10 The other member listed was George Caballero, with a Baton Rouge,

Louisiana, address. The law is clear that if any member of a Florida limited

liability company is a citizen of Florida, then the company is a citizen of Florida

for purposes of diversity. Over the last ten years, Red Stick has been and continues

to be an active Florida limited liability company. As of this date, the address for

both Don St. John and George Caballero is listed as the Gulfview Road address in

North Palm Beach, Florida.11

9 For example, the State of Arkansas permits a public search of foreign limited liability

companies and shows Red Stick as a Florida limited liability company that was, but is no longer,

registered in Arkansas. See https://www.ark.org/corD-search/index.php and search for Red Stick

Acquisitions, LLC (last accessed July 17, 2024).

10 See https://search.suribiz.org/Inquiry/CoiporationSearch/BvName and search for Red Stick

Acquisitions, LLC (last accessed July 17,2024).

11 Mr. DeBoskey includes a one-page “Limited Power of Attorney” from Red Stick Acquisitions,

LLC, at an Irvine, California address as grantor to KC Wilson, with the same Irvine address,

which is found in the property records of Hernando County, Florida. Dkt. 25 at 32. This

document was not recorded until 2021, and there is no indication that it is related to the property

at issue in this case. Red Stick is not identified as either a Florida limited company or as

registered in California as a foreign limited company.

10

B-12

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

2536

Filed 07/17/24

Page 11 of 13 PagelD

Mr. DeBoskey notes that Don St. John is an inactive member of the North

Carolina bar association and lists an address in Pinehurst, North Carolina. Dkt 25

at 8-9, 38. This does not establish Mr. St. John’s citizenship for purposes of

diversity. As to George Caballero, he is an eligible member of the Louisiana State

Bar Association and lists his address in the directory as the Baton Rouge,

Louisiana, address. Id. at 8-9, 39. Attorneys often do not list their home residence

as their address in bar memberships as it is accessible by the public. The addresses

for St. John and Caballero do not establish their citizenship for purposes of

diversity.12

The Court finds that Mr. DeBoskey as the removing defendant has failed to

establish complete diversity by demonstrating Red Stick is not a citizen of Florida.

Federal Question

In his response, Mr. DeBoskey asserts that federal question jurisdiction

exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and (2), which is titled “Civil rights cases.”

Dkt. 25 at 12. He is mistaken.

Neither the 2016 complaint nor the 2018 amended complaint alleges a claim

of a civil rights violation. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Anderson, No. 6:12-cv-

12 The Court also notes that it is irrelevant to diversity that DeBoskey unsuccessfully attempted

to effect service of process in DeBoskey I on Red Stick at the Gulfview Road address. Dkt. 25 at

9,18-21.

11

B-13

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

2537

Filed 07/17/24

Page 12 of 13 PagelD

1309-Orl-22DAB, 2012 WL 4896686, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24,2012) (holding

that a complaint alleging one count of mortgage foreclosure and a second count for

re-establishment of the note does not state a federal claim under the well-pleaded

complaint rule), adopted, by, 2012 WL 4899680 (Oct. 12,2012). The Court does

not look to defenses to create federal question jurisdiction because “a federal

defense does not fnake the case removable.” See Blab T. V. ofMobile, Inc. v.

Comcast Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 182 F.3d 851, 854 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)); Estate ofLindsay v. Gulf

Shore Facility, Inc., No. 8:21-cv-1238-WFJ-JSS, 2021 WL 7451925, at *3 (M.D.

Fla. Dec. 16,2021) (same). Complete preemption, as an exception to the wellpleaded complaint rule, is not apparent in this case. See Am. Products Production

Co. ofPinellas Cnty., Inc. v. Armstrong, 674 F. Supp. 3d 1118, 1123 (M.D. Fla.

2023) (recognizing that complete preemption is not an affirmative defense but an

exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, and discussing ERISA).

Finally, in support of federal question, Mr. DeBoskey cites to an excerpt

from the February 8,2024, hearing before the state court judge:

THE COURT: Yeah, I read all that [Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment]. There’s just—there’s a couple little issues in there you may

want to look at.

[PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY]: I’m • prepared, Your Honor. I’m

prepared. I addressed all the issues. I’m prepared to argue them. I guess

we’ll see when we move forward.

12

B-14

Case 8:24-cv-00325-WFJ-UAM

Document 28

2538

Filed 07/17/24

Page 13 of 13 PagelD

Dkt. 25 at 43-44. First, it is unclear what “issues” the state court is referring to in

the summary judgment. Second, to the extent Mr. DeBoskey cites sections

825.102 and 825.103 of the Florida statutes in his response, nothing was discussed

at the hearing about abuse or exploitation of an elderly person.

This Court has a duty to remand “at any time before final judgment” if it

determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). On this

record, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction, or diversity jurisdiction as

previously discussed in this order. Consequently, this Court lacks original subject

matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Red Stick’s motion to remand (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED. This case

is remanded to the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Hernando County,

Florida. The Clerk is directed to accomplish remand and thereafter terminate all

pending motions and deadlines and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on July 17,2024.

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

William P. DeBoskey, pro se

Counsel of record

13

B-15

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.