DLC Properties, Inc. v. Muhammad
| DLC Properties, Inc. |
| Jamal Muhammad |
| 1:2023cv05224 |
| August 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John F Kness |
| Rent Lease & Ejectment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 REMAND with certified copy of Order dated 8/22/2023 and Letter to Circuit Court of Cook County via email. (jh, ) |
| Filing 9 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice(ef, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 8/14/2023, the Court entered an order #6 noting an apparent lack of jurisdiction over this recently removed case and directing Defendant to submit a jurisdictional memorandum on or before 8/21/2023 showing cause why the case should not be remanded to the state court from which it was removed. Defendant did not submit the required memorandum. For the reasons previously noted #6 , it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to remand this case forthwith to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Enter final judgment order (without prejudice). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Correction regarding docket entry number #6 . (ef, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: In this state-law eviction case, Defendant filed a notice of removal from state court and asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Defendant Muhammad, however, did not attach a copy of the complaint to his notice of removal. That omission alone might be sufficient to require that this case be remanded to the state court, as the basis for removal must ordinarily be evident on the face of the removed complaint. Without a complaint on the record, the Court cannot make that determination. But the notice of removal suffers, at least facially, from a more fundamental defect. A lawsuit filed in a state court, as noted, cannot be removed to federal court unless the federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. And a federal law-based defense asserted by the removing defendant cannot by itself confer jurisdiction on a federal court. See, e.g., Sarauer v. Int'l Ass'n Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 966 F.3d 661, 66869 (7th Cir. 2020). Nothing that Defendant has filed in this court clearly demonstrates the existence of federal jurisdiction. Defendant appears to suggest that he might possess a defense to eviction based on the FDCPA or the FCRA, but a federal defense does not by itself confer jurisdiction. Id. In view of these issues, the Court directs Defendant to submit, on or before 8/21/2023, a jurisdictional memorandum showing cause why the Court should not remand this case to the state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. This requirement can be satisfied by Defendant's filing of a voluntary motion to remand. Case otherwise stayed until further order.Mailed notice (ef, ) Docket Text Modified on 8/15/2023 (ef, ). |
| Filing 5 MAILED Notice of Removal Letter to Plaintiff's Counsel, David Bejgiert. (jh, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Defendant Jamal Muhammad. (jh, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jh, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Defendant Jamal Muhammad to proceeed in District Court without prepaying fees or costs. (jh, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Defendant Jamal Muhamad. (jh, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jh, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED NOTICE of Removal from Cook County, Illinois, case number (20236004191) filed by Jamal Muhamad. (Exhibits) (jh, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jh, ) |
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 Illinois Northern 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
| Search for this case: DLC Properties, Inc. v. Muhammad | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: DLC Properties, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | David Bejgiert |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Jamal Muhammad | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
