Opinion
No. 1:00CV101-P-D
July 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is Petitioner's motion to remand this case to the special court of eminent domain, Lee County, Mississippi [12-1]. Having reviewed the motion, the response, and the authorities cited, the Court is prepared to rule. The Court finds as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The petitioner, Tupelo Redevelopment Agency (TRA) is a commission created under legislative act that operates as an agency of the City of Tupelo, Mississippi. TRA has the authority to exercise the right of eminent domain in accordance with sections 11-27-1, 27-37-47, and 43-35-17 of the Mississippi Code.
The City of Tupelo has charged TRA with the responsibility of redeveloping an area of downtown Tupelo known as the Fairgrounds. The respondents, as tenants in common, own certain parcels of property situated within the Fairgrounds property. TRA filed a lawsuit in the special court of eminent domain in Lee County, Mississippi, on February 8, 2000, involving Parcel 17.
Respondents removed the case on March 20, 2000. They allege that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter, since TRA is attempting to take their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as it applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner has filed a motion to remand.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original federal jurisdiction exists in "[a]ll civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, in order for this Court to properly have jurisdiction over this matter, the petitioner's claim must "arise under" federal law.
Whether a claim arises under federal law for removal purposes is determined solely by the reference to the plaintiff's complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475, 118 S.Ct. 921, 925, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) ("[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."). A case is not removable merely because a federal question may arise during the course of the litigation in connection with some defense or counterclaim. See Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320, 326-327 (5th Cir. 1998).
In the case presently before this Court, the petitioner raises only state law claims in seeking to condemn the temporary and permanent easement across Parcel 17 and provide just compensation to the respondents in accordance with the Mississippi Code. The respondents assert that TRA's actions amount to a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. However, the respondents cannot remove this case simply because they anticipate raising this, and possibly other, federal defenses to the petitioner's state law claims. As such, since the petitioner's claim does not arise under federal law, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the cause should be remanded to the special court of eminent domain of Lee County, Mississippi, for ultimate resolution.
According to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-19, TRA, as a condemning authority, must establish fair market value as of the date of the filing of the complaint for condemnation.
An order will issue accordingly.