SAITO
v.
20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se plaintiff cannot remove a state criminal or civil case to federal court when the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiff is not a defendant in the state action.
A pro se plaintiff filed a notice of removal for two pending state court cases, one criminal and one civil small claims. The federal court reviewed th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federalism Concerns In Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Koichi Saito’s Notice of Removal to United States District Court. (Doc. 1). Although there is no state court complaint attached, Saito has two state court cases pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in Collier County, Florida, 22-CT-1811 (“1811”); 22-SC- 3212 (“3212”), of which the Court takes judicial notice, see Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 947 F. 3d 649, 651-53 (11th Cir. 2020). Neither case can be removed to federal court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999)
Congress. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). Cases dealing with the violations of state motor vehicle laws are not defined by Article III of the Constitution nor otherwise authorized by Congress. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-69. So, to the extent that Saito is trying to remove his criminal case,
this Court cannot hear that matter. In case 3212, Saito is a plaintiff in Small Claims Court. The federal removal statute restricts the right of removal to the parties who are defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279
F. 3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (“A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)). And the defendant is the party against whom claims are asserted in the original complaint. See Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, No. 6:16-cv-861-Orl-40GJK, 2016 WL 8943289, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2016) (citation omitted). Because Saito is the party making the claims against Defendants in case 3212, his removal here is improper (even if this Court had subject matter jurisdiction). Saito thus has no right to remove this action, and the Court must remand the case to Florida state court. See Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F. 3d at 411 (“Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, federals courts are directed to construe removal statutes strictly’ and resolve “all doubts about jurisdiction . . . in favor of remand to state court.”). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 31, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Darrian Bryant v. Ford, 967 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2020)
- Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 649 (11th Cir. 2020)