Southwest Michigan Asset Management, LLC v. Goetz, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDALL GOETZ, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1636
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
Plaintiff Southwest Michigan Asset Management, LLC, filed this eviction action in Berrien
County Court against Defendants Randall Goetz, Michella Smith, and Jamie Vermilyer. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants Smith and Vermilyer, proceeding pro se, subsequently removed the
case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Although Plaintiff has
not moved to remand, the Court must remand the action on its own initiative if no subject matter
jurisdiction exists. Probus v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 234 F. App’x 404, 406 (6th Cir. 2007).
Defendants assert that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (See
id., PageID.1.)1 Under the “‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule,” federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.” Loftis v. UPS, Inc., 342 F.3d 509, 514 (6th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s
state court complaint does not create federal question jurisdiction because it relies entirely on
Michigan property law to seek the eviction of Defendants. (See Compl., PageID.9); see also Bank
1 Defendants do not contend, and it does not appear, that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Case 1:26-cv-01636-HYJ-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/22/26 Page 1
of 2

2
of Am., N.A. v. Mixon, No. 1:25-cv-1183, 2025 WL 3077523 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2025)
(remanding eviction case for lack of jurisdiction). And though Defendants appear to assert
counterclaims and/or defenses based on alleged violations of their federal constitutional rights, “it
is well settled that federal counterclaims and defenses are inadequate to confer federal
jurisdiction.” Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 914–15 (6th Cir. 2007)
(cleaned up).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the originating court for further
proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Smith’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
Dated: May 22, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01636-HYJ-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/22/26 Page 2
of 2