JBG Smith Properties v. Jordan Powell — Order Remanding Case to State Court (D.D.C., Document 7)
Summary
An order in JBG Smith Properties, LP First Residences v. Jordan Powell, Civil Action No. 24-3215 (UNA), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dated December 5, 2024 and filed as Document 7. Powell had removed a landlord and tenant case from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and filed a third party complaint against the Small Business Administration. The order recounts Powell's position that the SBA's alleged failure to adjust an Economic Injury Disaster Loan to Pricecheck Inc. left Powell unable to pay rent. The court finds that Powell does not show a denial of rights in the Superior Court, grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denies the other motions as moot and remands the case. The signature block names United States District Judge Ana C. Reyes.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“JBG Smith Properties v. Jordan Powell — Order Remanding Case to State Court (D.D.C., Document 7).”
Original at ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-remanding-case-to-state-court-no-1-24-cv-03215-dkt-7-d-d-c-47ff99c0ee/
, SHA-256 b48aeb3c8d6ca68382ea65026e8b80156c98f77e71580bea2d90bc150504d589.Full text
Case 1:24-cv-03215-UNA Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JBG SMITH PROPERTIES, :
LP FIRST RESIDENCES, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 24-3215 (UNA)
:
JORDAN POWELL, :
:
Defendant. :
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Jordan Powell’s Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1,
“Notice”), filed on November 4, 2024.1 Powell is the defendant in a matter pending before the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, Landlord and Tenant Branch. See
JBG Smith Properties, LP First Residences v. Powell, No. 2023-LTB-007524 (D.C. Super. Ct.
filed July 26, 2023). He removes this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, see generally Notice,
moves to stay the Superior Court proceedings, see generally Mot. to Stay the Landlord Tenant
Matter (ECF No. 5), and files a Third Party Complaint (ECF No. 3) against the Small Business
Administration (“SBA”). The Court REMANDS this matter to the Superior Court.
On October 25, 2024, the Superior Court entered a protective order pursuant to which
Powell is obliged to make monthly payments “for the full rent amount plus an additional $500 a
month as a month-to-month tenant (excluding parking, etc.),” beginning on November 5, 2024,
notwithstanding his “testimony and written affidavit that meeting the terms of the protective
1
This is Powell’s second attempt to remove the Superior Court case. See JBG Smith Properties,
LP First Residences v. Powell, No. 23-cv3663, 2023 WL 11803455 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2023),
appeal dismissed sub nom. JBG Smith Properties v. Powell, No. 24-5023, 2024 WL 2842289
(D.C. Cir. June 5, 2024) (per curiam), reh’g denied sub nom. JBG Smith Properties, LP First
Residences v. Powell, No. 24-5023, 2024 WL 3636025 (D.C. Cir. July 29, 2024) (per curiam),
cert. filed, No. 24-5839 (U.S. Oct. 29, 2024).
Case 1:24-cv-03215-UNA Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 4
order would be ‘impossible’” because his income falls far short of the rent obligation. Notice at
2. Powell posited that his inevitable “[f]ailure to pay results in an automatic win” for his
landlord and the denial of “equal civil rights at break-neck speed” for him. Id.
Powell attributes his predicament to the SBA and its alleged failure to adjust the amount
of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) extended to his company, Pricecheck Inc., see
id.; see also Third Party Complaint (ECF No. 3) ¶¶ 2-5, 11, 34. According to Powell, the SBA
denied the adjustment “due to racial discrimination,” Notice at 2, and had the SBA adjusted the
loan, its proceeds would have covered his rent, see id. at 2, 5.
A “civil action[] . . . commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the
district court of the United States for the district . . . embracing the place wherein [if] it is
pending . . . [a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a
right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all
persons within the jurisdiction thereof[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). “A removal petition under §
1443 must satisfy a two-pronged test: (1) the right denied the removal petitioner must arise under
a federal civil rights law securing racial equality; and (2) the removal petitioner must be denied
or must be unable to enforce the right in the State court.” Greene v. Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Henrico
Cnty., Va., 524 F. Supp. 43, 44 (E.D. Va. 1981) (citing Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219
(1975)). Importantly, “[w]hen the removal statute speaks of ‘any law providing for equal rights,’
it refers to those laws that are couched in terms of equality, such as the historic and the recent
equal rights statutes, as distinguished from laws, of which the due process clause and 42 U.S.C. §
1983 are sufficient examples, that confer equal rights in the sense . . . of bestowing them upon
all.” People of State of New York v. Galamison, 342 F.2d 255, 271 (2d Cir. 1965).
2
Case 1:24-cv-03215-UNA Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 4
Powell claims that “[t]he rights denied here are to sue, give evidence, enforce contracts,
lease and hold real property, hold personal property, and . . . the full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of property,” Notice at 2, and he cites “ch. 31, §1, 14 Stat. 27;
and §641 of the Revised Statutes of 1874,” id. While the cited statutory provision does appear to
qualify as a “equal rights” law, Powell does not demonstrate that he is denied or is unable to
enforce rights in the Superior Court. See In re Brannum, No. 96-5035, 1996 WL 248171, at *1
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 1, 1996) (per curiam) (“The district court correctly determined that removal of
these cases from the Landlord & Tenant Branch of the District of Columbia Superior Court was
unwarranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443, as no showing has been made that petitioner faces a
deprivation of his federally protected civil rights in the District of Columbia proceedings.”).
Powell does not allege that the Superior Court somehow prevents him from defending himself
against his landlord’s legal claims. Rather, the apparent goal is twofold: relief from unfavorable
Superior Court rulings, and a loan from the SBA to Pricecheck, Inc. As Powell well knows,
these matters are not properly before this Court. See Powell v. U.S. Small Business Admin., No.
24-cv-0207 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2024); JBG Smith Properties, LP First Residences v. Powell, No.
23-cv3663, 2023 WL 11803455 (D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2023); see also District Properties Assocs. v.
District of Columbia, 743 F.2d 21, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he doctrine of Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state
judicial proceedings.”).
It is hereby
ORDERED that Powell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is
GRANTED; it is further
3
Case 1:24-cv-03215-UNA Document 7 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 4
ORDERED that Powell’s motions for CM/ECF password [4], to stay the Superior Court
proceedings [5], and for a preliminary injunction [6] are DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter be REMANDED FORTHWITH to the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia.
The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this case.
SO ORDERED.
December 5, 2024 ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
4
File and source
- File
- 7-order-remanding-case-to-state-court-d-c-superior-court.pdf
- Size
- 136,109 bytes
- SHA-256
- b48aeb3c8d6ca68382ea65026e8b80156c98f77e71580bea2d90bc150504d589
- Original
- PACER (login required)