Elon Property Management v. Tonya Stevens

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJanuary 16, 2025
Docket24-13576
StatusUnpublished

This text of Elon Property Management v. Tonya Stevens (Elon Property Management v. Tonya Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elon Property Management v. Tonya Stevens, (11th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13576 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13576 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ELON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, agent of Barrington Apartments, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TONYA STEVENS, and all other occupants, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-04745-VMC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-13576 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13576

Before GRANT, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Tonya Stevens, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order remanding her case to Georgia state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, that order is unreviewable on ap- peal. 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 remand orders for which review is barred include 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) (holding that remand orders are only reviewable if, as relevant here, they are based on grounds other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction); New v. Sports & Recreation, 114 F.3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “a district court does not have to expressly state its reliance on section 1447(c) to preclude appellate review”). Additionally, Stevens did not invoke 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443 as the basis for the removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc.
114 F.3d 1092 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
593 U.S. 230 (Supreme Court, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elon Property Management v. Tonya Stevens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elon-property-management-v-tonya-stevens-ca11-2025.