Opinion
No. 1:00CV143-D-A
June 26, 2000
OPINION
Presently before the court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Lee County, Mississippi. Upon due consideration, the court finds that the motion should be granted and this cause remanded to state court for ultimate resolution.
A. Factual Background
The Plaintiff, Tupelo Redevelopment Agency (TRA), is a legislatively created commission that operates as an agency of the City of Tupelo, Mississippi. TRA has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain in accordance with sections 11-27-1, 21-37-47, and 43-35-17 of the Mississippi Code.
TRA has been charged by the City of Tupelo with the responsibility for redeveloping an area of downtown Tupelo commonly known as the Fairgrounds. Situated within the Fairgrounds property is a parcel of land owned by the Defendant.
On December 15, 1999, TRA filed suit in the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Lee County, Mississippi seeking to condemn the Defendant's property and provide just compensation to the Defendant in accordance with Mississippi's statutory scheme for the condemnation of private property by public entities. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-27-1 to 11-27-91. The Defendant removed the case to this court on April 25, 2000 asserting that federal jurisdiction exists because he plans to raise federal defenses or counterclaims to the Plaintiff's state law claims. The Plaintiff has now motioned the court to remand the case to state court.
B. Standard for Remand
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.
For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the Plaintiff's claims do not "arise under" federal law; as such, this court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate this action and remand to state court is proper.
C. Discussion
The Defendant argues that this case is removable based upon his planned defense or counterclaim that the Plaintiff's lawsuit constitutes an attempted taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defendant also purportedly plans to assert that the Plaintiff's suit violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.
It is axiomatic that whether a claim arises under federal law for removal purposes is determined solely by 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."). Likewise, it is not enough for removal purposes that 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 order for case to be removable, a "federal question must be presented by plaintiff's complaint . . . [i]t is insufficient that a federal question has been raised as a matter of defense or as a counterclaim.").
In this case, the Plaintiff's complaint, denoted a "Petition for Special Court of Eminent Domain," indisputably raises only state law claims seeking to condemn the Defendant's property and provide just compensation to the Defendant in accordance with Mississippi's statutory scheme for the condemnation of private property by public entities. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-27-1 to 11-27-91. The Defendant's sole basis for removal is premised upon the fact that he plans to raise federal defenses to the Plaintiff's state law claims. As explained above, federal defenses are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction when the Plaintiff's well pleaded complaint seeks relief solely under state law. As such, the Plaintiff's claims do not arise under federal law, and this court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Therefore, this cause shall be remanded to the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Lee County, Mississippi for ultimate resolution.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that
(1) the Plaintiff's motion to remand (docket entry 7) is GRANTED; and
(2) this cause is hereby REMANDED to the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Lee County, Mississippi.