Robert Snyder v. Citimortgage, Incorporated, No. 13-2194 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2194 ROBERT A. SNYDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED; CITIFINANCIAL, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02084-JKB) Submitted: February 25, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Scott, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert A. Snyder appeals the district court s order denying his motion to remand his quiet title action to state court, granting Defendants motion to dismiss, and dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, Snyder contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to remand his case to the state court. We jurisdiction, removal. review de We agree. including novo those questions relating of to subject the matter propriety of Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir. 1999). The burden of demonstrating jurisdiction resides with the party seeking removal. Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 407 (4th F.3d 255, omitted). 260 Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks We construe removal jurisdiction strictly ; thus, if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand to state court is necessary. Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Here, Defendants did not establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants accordance federal Thus, established federal with courts 28 U.S.C. original we ยง 1331 must question (2012), jurisdiction of be satisfied that jurisdiction, in which on all confers civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 2 States. A case may arise under the laws of the United States if a well-pleaded complaint established that [the plaintiff s] right to relief substantial parties. under question state of law federal requires law in resolution dispute of between the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). party a seeking removal must therefore establish two The elements: (1) that the plaintiff s right to relief necessarily depends on a question of federal law, and (2) that the question of federal law is substantial. Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue. Id.; see Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 153 (4th Cir. 1994) ( [I]f a claim is supported matter would not only jurisdiction not establish by but a theory also such by establishing an federal alternative jurisdiction, then subject theory federal which subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. ). In this case, we conclude that Defendants failed to establish the existence of federal question jurisdiction. State law creates Snyder s cause of action an action to quiet title. Defendants point to the portion of Snyder s complaint in which he alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 3 the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, and several other federal jurisdiction. statutes, to support their claim of federal Snyder does not, however, advance these alleged violations of federal law as individual causes of action for which he seeks relief. Moreover, Snyder s state law quiet title action does not depend on a finding that Defendants violated federal law; Snyder advances many state law arguments in support of his claim to quiet title, any one of which, if valid, could support his action. Accordingly, we vacate the district court s order and remand Snyder s to the action district to the court state with court. instructions We dispense to remand with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
