SFR ACQUISITIONS 2, et al v. NOBLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
SFR ACQUISITIONS 2, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DERRICK NOBLE,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:25-cv-00172-TES
ORDER REMANDING CASE
On November 5, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant Derrick Noble to show cause
and explain how it had subject-matter jurisdiction of his removed dispossessory
proceeding. [Doc. 4]. On November 19, 2025, Defendant filed his response to the Court’s
Show Cause Order [Doc. 4]. [Doc. 5]. In his Response, Defendant asserts that “[o]ne of
the allowed reasons for federal removal [is] if [t]he case involves a substantial federal
question, meaning a claim arises directly under the U.S. Constitution or federal law,
such as certain housing or civil rights statutes.” [Id. at p. 1]. Defendant continues by
arguing that “[t]his is literally the definition listed in several [ ] legal journals of Show
Cause for Federal Removal.” [Id.]. For the reasons explained below and for those
reasons discussed in the Court’s Order to Show Cause [Doc. 4], this case is
Case 3:25-cv-00172-TES Document 6 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 3

2
REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Walton County1 for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In one regard, Defendant is correct. As explained in the Court’s Order, “[f]ederal
jurisdiction exists only when it is ‘authorized by Constitution and statute.’” [Doc. 4, p. 6,
citing Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999)]. Critically,
though, “there must be either diversity of citizenship as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
or the state court complaint must present a federal question as contemplated by 28
U.S.C. § 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).” [Doc. 4, p. 6]. In particular, the Court warned
Defendant that, without more information, neither diversity of citizenship nor federal
question would be a viable avenue for establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in this
Court. See generally [Doc. 4].
Defendant’s response, however, fails to address the issues raised by the Court.
Defendant provides no additional information about the amount in controversy. See
[Doc. 5]. To this Court’s knowledge, this dispute concerns $3,550.00, nowhere near the
$75,000.00 threshold as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant also fails to provide
any support for his contention that removal is appropriate on the basis of federal
question other than to regurgitate what types of claims generally qualify for federal
question jurisdiction. [Id.]. As previously explained to Defendant, dispossessory actions
are authorized under the Official Code of Georgia. [Doc. 4, pp. 9–10]. No federal
1 Reference: Walton County Magistrate Court Case No: 25-4884DS.
Case 3:25-cv-00172-TES Document 6 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 3

3
question is presented by the dispossessory proceeding such that this Court would have
been able to exercise original subject-matter jurisdiction over it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Defendant has given no information to disturb that conclusion.
Therefore, in keeping with its independent obligation to inquire into subject-
matter jurisdiction wherever it may be lacking, the claim forming the basis for this
removed action was simply a dispossessory action and therefore exclusively a matter of
state law. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Federal courts are
obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking.”); Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dhinoja, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1381 (N.D. Ga. 2010).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over
this case. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to REMAND the case to the
Magistrate Court of Walton County and CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of November, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cv-00172-TES Document 6 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 3