Kondaur Capital, et al. v. Roberto Soler, No. 20-14263 (11th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14263 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ KONDAUR CAPITAL,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 2 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 5 20-14263 ____________________ Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal arises out of a state-court foreclosure action against Roberto Soler, the pro se defendant-appellant here. Seeking 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 asserted 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, Relief, 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 insured 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 20-14263 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 5 3 appeal to the court’s ruling, which otherwise appears to be correct. We affirm. We review de novo whether the district court has subjectmatter 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 civilrights 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 4 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 5 20-14263 Here, Soler has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s ruling that he failed to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction.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 jurisdiction. There is no indication that the state-court foreclosure action arose under federal law, that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were satisfied 3, or that Soler has been denied or unable to enforce 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). Notably, even if the parties are diverse, removal is barred where a “defendant[] 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. 3 USCA11 Case: 20-14263 Document: 50-1 20-14263 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 5 of 5 5 basis of a federal defense”). Without a statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction, the district court properly determined that it was required 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 subjectmatter jurisdiction, and because it otherwise appears that the remand order was correct, we affirm. AFFIRMED.

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.