United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
YU-WEN CHIU, ET. AL.
CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III, ET. AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiffs' Yu-Wen Chiu and Chih-Yang Hu (hereinafter,
the “Hu Plaintiffs”) “Motion to Remand for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” (Rec. Doc. 9),
IT IS ORDERED that the Hu Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
This case is remanded to the First City Court of New Orleans
for eviction proceedings, where it originated as civil action
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs and Defendant Charles Edward Lincoln, III
(“Defendant Charles III”) executed a lease
agreement on April 6, 2017, where Charles III would reside at
the Hu Plaintiff's 228 Walnut Street property in New
Orleans, Louisiana (the “Property”). Rec. Docs. 1
and 9. According to the parties, Third-Party Defendant Jill
Jones-Soderman (“Soderman”) represented that she
would pay the rent pursuant to Defendant Charles III's
employment with her organization. Id. Soderman,
however, is not a party to the lease agreement. Id.
Defendant Charles III moved into the Property on or about
April 8, 2017. Rec. Doc. 9-1 at 3. A few months later, in
August 2017, Soderman informed the Hu Plaintiffs and
Defendant Charles III that she would no longer pay rent as
she was terminating her employment relationship with
Defendant Charles III. Rec. Docs. 9-1 and 9-2. Upon said
information, the Hu Plaintiffs offered Charles III early
termination of his lease. Rec. Doc. 9-2. Charles III declined
the Hu Plaintiff's offer. Rec. Doc. 9-2. After about
three months of non-payment, the Hu Plaintiffs initiated
eviction proceedings in state court against Charles III for
his failure to pay rent pursuant to the lease agreement. Rec.
Docs. 1 and 9. This case was removed by Defendant Charles
Edward Lincoln, III (“Charles III”) from state
court on November 13, 2017. Charles III removed the instant
case, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334, 1452 as grounds for
federal jurisdiction. Rec. Doc. 1.
Defendant Charles III asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction because the subject lease between him and the Hu
Plaintiffs was part of a “grand bankruptcy and general
financial rehabilitation program” to which Soderman
agreed “to underwrite” pursuant to a “plan
of long-term collaboration and partnership.” Rec. Doc.
1 at 1-3. Charles III also vaguely asserts federal
jurisdiction based on alleged “related cases”
already in federal court, referencing civil action nos.
16-12650 in Bankruptcy Court and 17-11111 in this Court.
party may remove an action from state court to federal court
if the action is one over which the federal court possesses
subject matter jurisdiction.” Manguno v. Prudential
Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir.
2002)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)).
The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper. De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir.
1995); Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989 F.2d 812,
815 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Willy v. Coastal
Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir. 1988). To determine
whether jurisdiction is present for removal, we consider the
claims in the state court petition as they existed at the
time of removal. Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.
Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 1995). Any ambiguities
are construed against removal because the removal statute
should be strictly construed in favor of remand. Acuna v.
Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.
Id. In addition to the above, federal courts may
raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction even if the
parties have not raised the issue themselves. Gaar v.
Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1996).
Charles III cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334, 1452 as
grounds for removal. Section 1334 provides that:
(b) . . . the district courts shall have original but not
exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings
arising under title 11, or arising in or related to
cases under title 11.
28 U.S.C. § 1334 (2005). Section 1452 provides that:
(a) [a] party may remove any claim or cause of action in a
civil action . . . to the district court for the district
where such civil action is pending, if such district court
has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under
section 1334 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1452 (1990). However, contrary to Defendant
Charles III's contentions, neither of these statutes
support removal of the Hu Plaintiffs' ...