BROWN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
| Elyse Brown and ELYSE I. BROWN |
| DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
| 1:2022cv00483 |
| February 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Timothy J Kelly |
| Condemnation |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case Remanded to Superior Court re Minute Order Remanding Case to State Court. (ztth) |
MINUTE ORDER: After Defendant removed this case on federal question grounds, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause why it should not be remanded to District of Columbia Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction given that Plaintiff appears to assert only claims under D.C. law. Defendant responded that Plaintiff used the word "taking" in her amended complaint and therefore must be asserting a claim under the Fifth Amendment because D.C. law "does not provide a remedy for inverse condemnation." ECF No. 6 at 1. "A civil action filed in state court may only be removed to a United States district court if the case could originally have been brought in federal court." Nat'l Consumers League v. Flowers Bakeries, LLC, 36 F. Supp. 3d 26, 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1441(a)). Relevant here, federal-question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is "presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Courts in this district have held in similar contexts that there is no federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff fails to reference the Fifth Amendment or U.S. Constitution in a complaint. See Park S. Neighborhood Corp. v. Vesta Mgmt. Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 192, 195-196 (D.D.C. 2015) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because "aside from [a] lone reference" to "constitutional law," the plaintiff does not reference the Fifth Amendment); see also Fields v. District of Columbia, 155 F. Supp. 3d 9, 10 (D.D.C. 2016) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because "[a]side from a few stray references" to "substantive and due process rights" Plaintiff did not "mention or allude to" the Fifth Amendment or Constitution). Here, Plaintiff makes no reference to the Fifth Amendment, the U.S. Constitution, or any federal rights at all; the amended complaint contains only references D.C. law. And although Plaintiff alleges that the damage Defendant caused to her property resulted in a "taking of and damage to the bluestone and granite" comprising the walkway to her property, Plaintiff does not "assert a constitutional claim or seek any relief based on the Constitution." Park S., 80 F. Supp. 3d at 196. Moreover, Plaintiff "affirmatively asserted" in her response to Defendant's motion to dismiss that she is not pursuing any federal claims. Fields, 155 F. Supp. 3d at 12; ECF No. 7 at 4. Accordingly, because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/6/2022. (lctjk3)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to #5 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELYSE I. BROWN. (Wallach, Jason); Modified docketing event and text on 4/1/2022 (ztth). |
| Filing 8 REPLY to opposition to motion re #7 Response to motion filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Martini, Ryan) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE re #5 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELYSE I. BROWN. (Wallach, Jason) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER re Order to Show Cause, Set Deadlines, by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Martini, Ryan); Modified text and docketing event on 3/23/2022 (ztth). |
|
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff brought suit in D.C. Superior Court alleging that Defendant had violated her rights under D.C. law when it undertook construction on her property. Defendant removed the case to federal district court and invoked federal-question jurisdiction, contending that Plaintiff brought a claim under the Fifth Amendment. ECF No. 1. But Plaintiff's amended complaint only alleges violations of the D.C. Code. See ECF No. 1-2 at 53. Thus, from the face of Plaintiff's complaint, it appears that there is no federal-question presented in this case, and federal-question jurisdiction appears to be the only potential basis for federal-court jurisdiction over this action. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that by March 25, 2022, Defendant shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction "may occur sua sponte...when... it is evident that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 3/11/2022. (lctjk3)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss or, MOTION for Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(Martini, Ryan) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Drew Wallach on behalf of ELYSE I. BROWN (Wallach, Jason) |
| Receipt on 3/4/2022 of Electronic Transfer. Other Court Number 2021 CA 003693 B sent by D.C. Superior Court. (ztth) |
| Filing 3 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Martini, Ryan) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE to Counsel/Party re #1 Notice of Removal (znmg) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. (znmg) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of the District of Columbia, case number 2021 CA 003693 B (Fee Status:Filing Fee Waived) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Superior Court Documents)(Martini, Ryan) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
