Wells Fargo Bank v. Miles Hart

── Wells Fargo Bank v. Miles Hart ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: ORD USCA11 Case: 25-13109 Document: 29 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13109 ____________________ WELLS FARGO BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MILES CHRISTIAN HART, Defendant-Appellant, THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MILES CHRISTIAN HART, et al., Defendants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:25-cv-01539-WFJ-AEP ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: After Miles Christian Hart, pro se, removed a foreclosure ac- tion to federal court, Wells Fargo Bank moved to remand it to state USCA11 Case: 25-13109 Document: 29 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Order of the Court 25-13109 court, arguing, inter alia, that the removal was untimely and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In an order en- tered on July 17, 2025, the district court granted the motion, agree- ing with Wells Fargo both that the removal was untimely and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Hart moved for recon- sideration, and, in an order entered on August 8, 2025, the district court denied the motion. Hart appealed. We issued a jurisdictional question asking whether he may appeal from either order. After reviewing the record and the parties’ responses to our question, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the July 17 order. That order granted a timely motion to remand based on both a defect in the removal procedure and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Hart did not remove the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(d), 1442, 1443; Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED to the extent that it is taken from the July 17 order. We CARRY WITH THE CASE the issue of whether we have jurisdiction to review the August 8 order denying Hart’s mo- tion for reconsideration. A final determination regarding jurisdic- tion will be made by the panel to whom this case is submitted on the merits.