Prestige Home Investments, LLC v. Sue Hopkins, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11150
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
PRESTIGE HOME INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SUE V. HOPKINS,
THOMAS HOPKINS,
DAVID DASILVA,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-11150 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11150
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01088-AT
____________________
Before WILSON , J ORDAN , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We issued a jurisdictional question asking the parties to ad-
dress whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s
order remanding the action to Georgia state court and specifically
whether the action was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 or § 1443.
None of the parties have filed a response to the jurisdictional ques-
tion, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
Upon our review of the record, we DISMISS this appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Because the district court based its remand or-
der on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, our review is barred
under § 1447(d). See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); New v. Sports & Recre-
ation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997).
Further, no exception applies to this jurisdictional bar be-
cause this action was not removed under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442
or 1443. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1443, 1447(d). While Appellants
asserted that Appellee violated their civil rights by initiating this
dispossessory action, they did not allege that the state court pre-
vented them from raising that assertion in a defense or counter-
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) (permitting removal by parties who
are “denied, or cannot enforce in the courts of such state a right
under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the
United States”). Indeed, Appellants raised the claim in their answer
USCA11 Case: 23-11150 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-11150 Opinion of the Court 3
filed in the state court one day before they removed the action.
Moreover, although Appellants cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 as
their bases of removal, they did not expressly cite § 1443.
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
USCA11 Case: 23-11150 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --