Kondaur Capital, et al. v. Roberto Soler

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-14263
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
KONDAUR CAPITAL,
FANNIE MAE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
ROBERTO SOLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-24403-BB
USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14263
____________________
Before WILSON, R OSENBAUM , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of a state-court foreclosure action
against Roberto Soler, the
pro se defendant-appellant here. Seek-
ing to prevent a foreclosure sale from going forward in October
2020, Soler filed a notice removing the case to federal district court
based on federal-question jurisdiction,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He as-
serted that a federal foreclosure moratorium on federally insured
mortgages barred the plaintiffs-appellees from going forward with
the sale.1 The district court promptly reviewed the case and, acting
on its own motion, issued an order remanding it to state court for
lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Soler appeals the remand order. Liberally construing his
briefing on appeal, we understand his arguments on appeal to be
that the underlying state-court foreclosure action and sale are void.
But he does not challenge the court’s reasoning for remanding the
case to state court. As a result, he has abandoned any challenge on
1 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and under the Coronavirus Aid, Re-
lief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281,
§ 4022 (2020), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in
March 2020 authorized a 60-day moratorium on foreclosures of mortgages in-
sured by the Federal Housing Administration and evictions of persons from
properties securing FHA-insured mortgages. HUD issued multiple extensions
of the moratorium through at least December 2020.
USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

20-14263 Opinion of the Court 3
appeal to the court’s ruling, which otherwise appears to be correct.
We affirm.
We review
de novo whether the district court has subject-
matter jurisdiction.
Patel v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 967 F.3d
1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 2020). In doing so, we liberally construe the
filings of
pro se parties.
Sconiers v. Lockhart, 946 F.3d 1256, 1262
(11th Cir. 2020). Still, though, “issues not briefed on appeal by a
pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
Timson v. Sampson, 518
F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). And when a litigant fails to brief the
grounds for the district court’s ruling, it “follows that the judgment
is due to be affirmed.”
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d
678, 681 83 (11th Cir. 2014).
In general, a state-court case can be removed to federal court
if it could have been brought in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). Original federal jurisdiction exists where the case arises
under federal law,
id. § 1331(a), or where diversity of citizenship
and a sufficient amount in controversy are present,
id. § 1332(a). A
case can also be removed to federal court to enforce federal civil-
rights law.
See id. § 1443. But district courts must remand a case
to state court “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
Id. § 1447(c).
“[T]he party invoking the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the
existence of federal jurisdiction.
McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d
1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002).
USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 20-14263
Here, Soler has abandoned any challenge to the district
court’s ruling that he failed to establish the existence of federal ju-
risdiction.2 He argues that the foreclosure sale was void ab initio.
But federal “district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a
statutory basis,”
see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005), and Soler does not identify one.
Nor does the record reflect the existence of federal jurisdic-
tion. There is no indication that the state-court foreclosure action
arose under federal law, that the requirements of diversity jurisdic-
tion were satisfied3, or that Soler has been denied or unable to en-
force a federal “civil right[] stated in terms of racial equality” in
state court for purposes of § 1443.
See Alabama v. Conley, 245 F.3d
1292, 1295 (11th Cir. 2001). That Soler’s notice of removal asserted
a defense to foreclosure based on federal law does not authorize
removal to federal court.
See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 393 (1987) (“a case may not be removed to federal court on the
2 We lack jurisdiction to review “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court
from which it was removed” for lack of jurisdiction, except where the case was
“removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Because
Soler cited 28 U.S.C. § 1443 as a ground for removal, we have jurisdiction to
review the “whole of [the remand] order” on appeal, including whether the
district court had original federal jurisdiction.
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021).
3 Notably, even if the parties are diverse, removal is barred where a “defend-
ant[] is a citizen of the State in which [the] action is brought.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b)(2). This means that Soler, an apparent citizen of Florida, could not
invoke federal diversity jurisdiction over the Florida state-court foreclosure
action in which he was a defendant.
USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

20-14263 Opinion of the Court 5
basis of a federal defense”). Without a statutory basis for exercising
jurisdiction, the district court properly determined that it was re-
quired to remand the case to state court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Because Soler has abandoned any challenge to the grounds
for the district court’s order remanding the case for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, and because it otherwise appears that the re-
mand order was correct, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --