United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GREGORY J. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the
MOTION: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (Doc. No. 2)
FILED: May 6, 2019
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED
that the motion be DENIED and the case be
April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint for tenant
eviction against Defendants in the County Court, in and for
Osceola County. Doc. No. 1. The Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff leased a residential property to Defendants, they
failed to pay the full rent when it became due, and $18,
900.00 in rent remains due and owing from Defendants. Doc.
No. 1. Plaintiff requests a judgment for possession of the
premises. Id. at 2. Defendant John David
(“David”) filed an answer and claimed
habitability issues because of a high water bill. Doc. No.
6, 2019, David filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446(d). Doc. No. 1-3. Defendants offer no
jurisdictional basis for the removal. Doc. No. 1-3. On May 6,
2019, David filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (the
“Motion”) as the removing defendant. Doc. No. 2.
The Motion was referred to the undersigned. In the Motion,
David states his monthly take-home wages are $5, 000.
Id. at 1. David also indicates he has $1, 500.00 in
cash or in a checking or savings account. Id. at 3.
Jurisdiction and Pleading.
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
district court may at any time, upon motion or sua sponte,
act to address the potential lack of subject matter
jurisdiction in a case. Herskowitz v. Reid, 187
Fed.Appx. 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Howard v.
Lemmons, 547 F.2d 290, 290 n.1 (5th Cir.
1977)). “[I]t is well settled that a federal
court is obligated to inquire into subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”
Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405,
410 (11th Cir. 1999). Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction; therefore, the Court must inquire into its
subject matter jurisdiction, even when a party has not
challenged it. Id.
a given case, a federal district court must have at least one
of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1)
jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or
(3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128
F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). The removing party bears
the burden of demonstrating federal jurisdiction exists.
Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1281
n. 5 (11th Cir. 2001).
presence or absence of a federal question is governed under
the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides
that federal question jurisdiction exists only where a
federal question is presented on the face of the state court
plaintiff's complaint. See Gully v. First Nat'l
Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13 (1936). Diversity
jurisdiction exists when the parties are of diverse
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Proceeding In ...