Christy Poon-Atkins, P.E. v. River Springs at Alcovy Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-13607
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13607 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13607 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

CHRISTY POON-ATKINS, P.E., CALVIN ATKINS, Plaintiffs-Consol Defendants Consol Counter Claimants-Appellants, GEOSAM CAPITAL US (GEORGIA) LLC, Consol Plaintiff, versus RIVER SPRINGS AT ALCOVY HOMEOWNERS ASS'N, INC.,

Defendant-Consol Plaintiff Consol Counter Defendant-Appellee, USCA11 Case: 24-13607 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13607

GEOSAM CAP. US. GA.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket Nos. 1:24-cv-02207-JPB, 1:24-cv-02208-JPB ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Christy Poon-Atkins and Calvin Atkins, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s October 23, 2024, order remanding three consolidated cases to Georgia state court. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order be- cause it remanded two of the cases based on procedural defects raised in Geosam Capital US (Georgia) LLC’s timely motion to re- mand and remanded the third case for lack of subject matter juris- diction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co., 995 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, under the statute, remand orders for which review is barred include those based on motions to remand because of procedural USCA11 Case: 24-13607 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13607 Opinion of the Court 3

defects filed within 30 days of the removal and those based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that remand orders are only reviewable if they are based on grounds other than those specified in § 1447(c)). Additionally, the appellants did not invoke 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443 in their notices of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021). Accordingly, the appellees’ motion is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.