Joelle Angel v. Charlestowne Condominium Association, Inc., No. 22-1780 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1780 JOELLE ANGEL; ROZELYND BRIGHT; CHERIE LEE; CYNTHIA PARKER; KELVIN PENNY; PEGGY PENNY; SAMUEL WARD; MICHAEL WILLIAMS; SANDRA WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and KRISTINA VINSON, Appellant, and KEITH L. CURRY; STEPHEN VINSON, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLESTOWNE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.; CAVALIER COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC; ATLANTIC COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, CORPORATION; TRENTE BALDERSON; JEFFREY HODGSON; PHILIP MASSA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00453-RAJ-RJK) Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023 Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joelle Angel, Rozelynd Bright, Cherie Lee, Cynthia Parker, Kelvin Penny, Peggy Penny, Samuel Ward, Michael Williams, Sandra Williams, Keith L. Curry, Stephen Vinson, Kristina Vinson, Appellants Pro Se. Eve Grandis Campbell, O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s orders granting Charlestowne Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“CCA’s”) motion to remand this removed action to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and denying Appellants’ motions for sanctions against CCA’s counsel and their motion to amend the motion for sanctions. CCA has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal,” but there is an exception for “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to” 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 153637 (2021). Liberally construing Appellants’ pro se notice of removal, see Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022), Appellants premised removal on § 1443 based on their counterclaim under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619. We therefore conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, we deny CCA’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Turning to Appellants’ challenges to the orders remanding the action to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and denying Appellants’ motions for sanctions and to amend the motion for sanctions, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Angel v. Charlestowne Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00453-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2022; June 30, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
