govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_26-cv-01870-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL BORROWER 
19, LLC, 
Plaintiff, 
 
Civil Action No.  
1:26-cv-01870-SDG 
v.  
EVERLENA RASHEEDA BRUMMAGE; 
DYLIYAH SHUPIER WHITE; and all other 
occupants, 
Defendants. 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER  
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ petition to vacate and set 
aside an alleged wrongful eviction  action.1 They removed to this Court from the 
Magistrate Court of Cobb County, Georgia, asserting 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343, 
and 1357 as grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction.2 The dispossessory action against 
Defendants was initiated because of their apparent failure to pay rent.3  
Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is appropriate where a 
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 
complaint. Lindley v. FDIC, 733 F.3d 1043, 1050 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing  Caterpillar 
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). When a complaint alleges only state-law 
 
1  ECF 3.  
2  Id. at 2.  
3  Id. at 2, ¶ 3; ECF 3-1.  
Case 1:26-cv-01870-SDG     Document 6     Filed 04/10/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
claims, there is no jurisdiction “arising under” federal law. Conn. State Dental Ass’n 
v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009). The dispossessory 
action here is solely based on state law. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has 
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1562) and the Due 
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but provide no details about how 
an allegedly illegal eviction offends either provision  or how such violations are 
evident from the face of the dispossessory complaint . Unsupported conclusions 
do not support removal based on federal-question jurisdiction. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. 
Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830–31 (2002) (noting that federal 
defenses and counterclaims do not establish “arising under” jurisdiction). 
Similarly, removal is not supported by § 1343, which is a subset of § 1331 
jurisdiction, because Defendants have not alleged that they cannot enforce their 
federal rights in the state court. Nor is there jurisdic tion under § 1357 because the 
underlying complaint does not involve an attempt by Defendants to recover for 
injuries resulting from attempts to collect revenues or to exercise the right to vote. 
Finally, Defendants have not established diversity jurisdiction. The amount 
in controversy (i.e., the arrearage of $12,189) is well below the necessary 
jurisdictional threshold and Defendant s appear to be citizen s of the State of 
Georgia in any event. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(b)(2). So, removal was not proper 
on this basis.  
Case 1:26-cv-01870-SDG     Document 6     Filed 04/10/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Clerk is DIRECTED to 
remand this case to the Cobb County Magistrate Court and to CLOSE this case.  
SO ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2026. 
Steven D. Grimberg 
United States District Judge 
Case 1:26-cv-01870-SDG     Document 6     Filed 04/10/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight