Watersedge at the Lakes of Delray Condominium Association, Inc. v. Gomez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-81481-McCabe
WATERSEDGE AT THE LAKES OF
DELRAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELFA M. GOMEZ,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Watersedge at the Lakes of Delray
Condominium Association, Inc.’s Motion to Remand. (DE 6). For the reasons set forth below,
the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the motion be GRANTED.
I. 	OVERVIEW
This is a condominium lien foreclosure case. Plaintiff Watersedge at the Lakes of Delray
Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”) filed this case in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50-2025-CA-011291. (DE 1-2
at 51-55). 	The state court complaint alleges that the Association, a Florida condominium
association and not-for-profit corporation, levied assessments against a condominium unit owned
by Defendant. (DE 1-2 at 51-53). Defendant failed to pay the assessment, and the Association
recorded a claim of lien against Defendant’s unit. 	(DE 1-2 at 51-53). 	The complaint seeks to
foreclose the lien and obtain damages associated with the delinquent assessments. (DE 1-2 at 51-
54).
Case 9:25-cv-81481-DMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
On November 26, 2025, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the action to this Court
claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	(DE 1 at 1). 	Specifically,
Defendant claims that she “intends to assert counterclaims arising under federal law,” including
alleged due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §
1343, and violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (DE 1 at 1-3).
On December 17, 2025, the Association moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (DE
6). The Association also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of removal. (DE 6 at
5-6).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Court will address the request for remand first, followed by the request for attorneys’
fees and costs.
A. 	Remand
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 	Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Therefore, federal courts may only hear cases that they have been
authorized to hear by the Constitution or the Congress of the United States. Id. Because removal
jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, federal courts must construe removal statutes
“strictly.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). “Indeed, all
doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Id.
The Court finds that no federal question jurisdiction exists over this case for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction arises only
when a federal issue appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. Kemp v. Int'l Bus. Machs.
Corp., 109 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir. 1997). Here, the state court complaint asserts a condominium
Case 9:25-cv-81481-DMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
lien foreclosure claim under Florida law. (DE 1-2 at 51-54). Nothing on the face of the complaint
gives rise to a claim under federal law. (DE 1-2 at 51-54).
Instead, Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction based on federal counterclaims she
plans to assert against the Association, including violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and
other purported federal claims. 	(DE 1 at 1-3). 	Federal question jurisdiction cannot be created,
however, based on actual or anticipated defenses or counterclaims. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado
Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002). Because the complaint raises only state law
causes of action, no federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
B. 	Attorneys’ Fees & Costs
The Association also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this
motion to remand. (DE 6 at 5-6). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a remand order may require payment
of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of removal.
“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). 	“Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis
exists, fees should be denied.” Id.
Even where removal is objectively unreasonable, however, “courts sometimes decline to
enter fee awards under § 1447 where the removing party is pro se.” Hiett v. Stanislaus Regional
Housing Auth., No. 1:22-cv-00612-JLT-EPG, 2022 WL 5440356, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022)
(collecting cases). Such is the case here. The Court recognizes that a lack of legal training poses
a significant hurdle in analyzing complicated issues of federal jurisdiction and removal. 	Given
Defendant’s lack of legal training, the Court declines to award attorneys’ fees or costs.
Case 9:25-cv-81481-DMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
III. 	RECOMMENDATION & NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand (DE 6) be GRANTED as follows:
1. 	This case should be REMANDED to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida.
2. 	Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs should be DENIED.
3. 	The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy
of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge. 	Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo
determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and Recommendation and
shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained
in this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
4. 	IF A PARTY DOES NOT INTEND TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, THE PARTY SHALL FILE A NOTICE TO THAT EFFECT
WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern
District of Florida, this 26th day of January 2026.
RYON M. MCCABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 9:25-cv-81481-DMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 4 of 4