ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on its own motion.
On August 4, 2004, Defendants David Diamond ("
In a single responsive pleading filed in state court: (1) Mr. and Mrs. Diamond filed an answer to the Foreclosure Complaint, asserting four affirmative defenses (Doc. 3, pp. 1-4); (2) Mr. and Mrs. Diamond alleged six counterclaims ("
On December 28, 2016, Select removed only the TP Complaint to this Court (see Doc. 1 ("
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, or in other words, they have the power to decide only certain types of cases. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). The types of cases include: (1) "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" (28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("
Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, a district court has jurisdiction "over all state claims which arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact with a substantial federal claim." Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 743 (11th Cir. 2006). Claims arising from a "common nucleus of operative facts" necessarily involve "the same witnesses, presentation of the same evidence, and determination of the same, or very similar facts." Palmer v Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1563-64 (11th Cir. 1994).
Removal jurisdiction exists where the Court would have had original jurisdiction over the action filed in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Only the claims asserted in a plaintiff's complaint, determine whether a case "arises under" federal law for purposes of Federal Question Jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60, 66 (2009). And federal jurisdiction exists only when the federal question is presented on face of the complaint. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 391 (1987); see also Lindley v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 733 F.3d 1043, 1050 (11th Cir. 2013). If an action includes a federal claim and a state law claim that is "not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court . . . then the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the [state law] claim." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1).
The Court has Federal Question Jurisdiction over the FDCPA Claims. As such, Select contends that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FCCPA Claims under "§ 1367(a) and/or § 1441(c)" because the FCCPA Claims: (1) relate to the same set of facts as the FDCPA Claims; and (2) arise out of the same communications and concern overlapping subject matter. (See Doc. 1, ¶ 11.) But Select's contention fails to appreciate that § 1441(c) cannot apply if the FCCPA Claims are within the Court's supplemental jurisdiction. This is so because § 1441(c)'s utility is limited and "only comes into play when liberal state joinder rules permit a state court plaintiff to file unrelated state claims together with federal claims." Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Morris, 118 F.Supp.3d 1288, 1297 (N.D. Ala. 2015) (emphasis added).
Here, both the federal and state claims targeted the same individuals, the same debt, and the same property. (See Doc. 3-1; Doc. 3-3; Doc. 3-4.) Further, the Default Notice and the Mortgage Statements form the basis for both the FCCPA Claims and the FDCPA Claims. Therefore, the FCCPA Claims are within the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) because they arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts. See, e.g., Jean-Baptiste v. Bus. Law Group, P.A., No. 8:16-cv-2027-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 4163574, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2016); see also Leblanc v. Advanced Credit Corp., No. 8:06-CV-7747T-27EAJ, 2007 WL 141173, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2007) (finding FCCPA claims and FDCPA claims to be part of a common nucleus of operative facts).
In contrast to § 1441(c), § 1441(a) provides the mechanism to remove related federal and state law claims. See Morris, 118 F. Supp. 3d at 1297. "[T]he federal claim [provides] a foothold in the district court, and supplemental jurisdiction [provides] the basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims." Id. (citing 16 J. Moore et al., Moore's Fed. Practice § 107.14[c] (3d ed. 2015)). As noted above, the FCCPA Claims and the FDCPA Claims are related, and removal of the TP Complaint is proper under § 1441(a).
Unfortunately for Select, a third-party defendant is not a "defendant" under § 1441(a); thus, it may not remove this action under that section.
Accordingly, the Clerk is