United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Krishan, Inc.'s Motion to Remand.
Doc. 6. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's
Motion is GRANTED.
case involves a basic eviction suit brought in Hunt County,
Texas Justice of the Peace Court by Plaintiff Krishan, Inc.
against Defendant Debra Kroupa. Doc. 6, Pl.'s Mot. to
Remand 1.Plaintiff apparently purchased property at
1216 Interstate Highway 30 West in Greenville, Texas at a
trustee's sale and then obtained a Judgment of eviction
against Debra Kroupa in the Justice of the Peace Court on
December 6, 2016. Id.; Doc. 6-3, State Court
Judgment. Kroupa appealed the Justice of the Peace Court
Judgment of eviction to the Hunt County Court at Law No. 2 on
January 10, 2017, and the appeal was set for hearing on
January 23, 2017. Doc. 1-3, Notice of Appeal; Doc. 1-5,
Notice of Court Setting. The day before the hearing, however,
Kroupa filed a notice of removal to this Court. Doc. 1,
Notice of Removal. Although Plaintiff cited 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) in her Notice of Removal (Doc. 1, Notice of Removal
1), it appears she actually intended to remove the case based
on federal question jurisdiction.
filed its Motion to Remand on February 8, 2017. Doc. 6,
Pl.'s Mot. to Remand. Kroupa responded on March 1, 2017.
Doc. 9, Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. to Remand
[hereinafter Def.'s Resp.]. Plaintiff did not file a
reply brief, and the time for doing so has passed.
See N.D. Tex. Local Civ. R. 7.1(f). Therefore,
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is ripe for review.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Howery v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
They possess only the power authorized by the Constitution
and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Therefore, district
courts “must presume that a suit lies outside this
limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal
forum.” Howery, 243 F.3d at 916.
defendant may remove an action filed in state court to
federal court if the case could have originally been filed in
federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removing party
bears the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction
exists. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408
(5th Cir. 1995). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is
limited to only those cases involving a question of federal
law or those where parties are of diverse citizenship.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332.
diversity cases, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be
diverse from the citizenship of each defendant, and the
amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Even then, a case may be removed on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction only if none of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a
citizen of the State in which such action is brought. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(b). Federal question jurisdiction
“exists when a well-pleaded complaint establishes
either that federal law creates the cause of action or that
the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on
resolution of a substantial federal law.” Borden v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
noted above, it is not totally clear on what basis Kroupa
alleges removal was proper. In both her Notice of Removal and
her response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Kroupa
indicates that the case was removed based on federal question
jurisdiction. Doc. 1, Notice of Removal 2 (“The United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, has jurisdiction over this action based on
federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1331.”); Doc. 9, Def.'s Resp. 1 (“A Federal
Question has been invoked as a result of the Civil Rights
Violations that have occurred as a result of the conduct of
the Plaintiff.”); Id. (“Defendants, will
asserted [sic] claims under the Federal Housing Act. Under 28
USC 1441. By asserting those claims, this Court has
jurisdiction over federal question matters.”). However,
Kroupa also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)-the federal
diversity statute-in the Notice of Removal. Doc. 1, Notice of
Removal 1 (“This Notice of Removal is filed pursuant to