WILLIAMS
v.
TAMPA BAY EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
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 plaintiff cannot remove their own case from state court to federal court.
Plaintiff filed suit in state court, then removed the action to federal court herself. The Magistrate Judge recommended remand, and the District Court…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Brittany Williams alleges that Tampa Bay Extended Stay Hotel behaved in a racially discriminatory manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, violating her rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. (Doc. 1.) Williams originally filed this action in state court but removed to this Court, observing that “the alleged violation [was] a federal violation.” (Doc. 4-1.) Along with her complaint and notice of removal, Williams filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). After reviewing the complaint and the motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that this Court remand the action to state court. (Doc. 4.) The fourteenday deadline for Williams to object to the Magistrate Judge’s report has passed (with an additional three-day period permitted for mailing), and she has not filed an objection. Nevertheless, this Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). After a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, the Court concludes that the action should be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. 4.) The removal statutes do not allow a plaintiff to remove her own case from state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (contemplating removal by a state-court defendant only); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (same); 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (same). Thus, Williams’s removal was improper, and this Court must remand it to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
2. The Clerk is directed to REMAND this action to the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of that court.
ENTERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 18, 2021.
_ 4 Mizelle : United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)