Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Walters et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as follows: (1) The 13 Motion for Remand is granted; (2) All other pending motions are left for disposition by the Circuit Court of Coffee County, AL after remand; and (3)This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Coffee County, AL; and (4) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/5/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION P A L M HARBOR HOMES, INC. P L A IN T IF F , v. M IC H A E L AND JENNIFER WALTERS, a n d CHESTER DRISKELL, DEFEN DANTS. ) ) ) ) ) C A S E NO.: 1:08cv196-MEF ) ) ) (WO) ) )
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is cause is before the Court on the Motion for Remand (Doc. # 13) filed on April 1 8 , 2008, by Plaintiff Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. ("Palm Harbor"). Defendants Michael W alters, Jennifer Walters, and Chester Driskell removed this action from the Circuit Court f o r Coffee County, Alabama on March 19, 2008, invoking this Court's subject matter ju ris d ic tio n pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). For several reasons, Plaintiff contends that th e statute does not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. F o r the reasons that follow, the Court agrees and finds that the Motion for Remand is due to b e GRANTED. J U R IS D IC T I O N AND REMAND STANDARD F e d e ra l courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. o f Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994); W y m b s v. Republican State Executive Comm., 719 F.2d 1072, 1076 (11th Cir. 1983). As s u c h , federal courts only have the power to hear cases that they have been authorized to hear
b y the Constitution or the Congress of the United States. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over civil actions that arise " u n d e r the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A d d it io n a lly, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions in which only state la w claims are alleged if the civil action arises under the federal court's diversity jurisdiction. S e e 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The diversity statute confers jurisdiction on the federal courts in c iv i l actions "between citizens of different states," in which the amount in controversy e x c e e d s $75,000. Id. Additionally, President George W. Bush signed the Class Action F a irn e ss Act of 2005 into law on February 18, 2005. The CAFA expands federal jurisdiction o v e r interstate class actions and specifically amended 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to give federal d i s tric t courts diversity jurisdiction over class actions where at least one member of the p lain tiff class is a citizen of a different state from any defendant and the total amount in c o n tro v e rs y exceeds $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Specifically, that provision states th a t [ t ] h e district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil a c tio n in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or v a lu e of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a c la s s action in which (A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; (B) any m e m b e r of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state and any d e f en d a n t is a citizen of a State; or (C) any member of a class of p la in tif f s is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign s ta te or citizen or subject of a foreign state. Id . (emphasis added). For purposes of this provision, the term "class action" is defined as
m e a n in g "any civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or s im ila r State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 o r more representative persons as a class action." 28 U.S.C. § 1332)(d)(1)(B) (emphasis a d d e d ). When a case is originally filed in state court, a party may remove it if the case o rig in a lly could have been brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, the n o n -m o v in g party may move for remand, which will be granted if "it appears that the district c o u rt lacks subject matter jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). D IS C U S S IO N In support of remand, Palm Harbor presents a variety of arguments concerning w h e th e r this case is properly before this Court. In this Court's view, the CAFA does not e x ten d jurisdiction to this action because it is not a Rule 23 class action as that term is d e f in e d in the plain language of the statute. This action was filed by a single plaintiff, Palm B a y against three individual defendants. When filing suit, Palm Bay did not invoke Federal R u le of Civil Procedure 23, or any similar State statute. Moreover, Palm Bay did not invoke a n y procedure authorizing the action to be brought by it in a representative capacity. For this re a so n , the Court cannot find that this case fits the narrow definition of class action provided b y 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(1)(B). Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that this case is a c la s s action, the Court cannot find that it meets the jurisdictional grant provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). That provision only applies, by its terms, to class actions brought by plaintiffs
o n behalf of classes of plaintiffs. It does not extend to class actions brought against classes o f defendants. In opposition to remand, Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiff's argument on this issue a n d expand 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) far beyond what is textually supportable. Defendants submit th a t because the case "involves" a class action the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The te x t of the statute provides no support for such a contention. Here, it matters not at all that th is lawsuit is a declaratory judgment that is related to an arbitration between the parties w h e re in class allegations have been made. That does not magically convert this lawsuit into a class action. The statute provides jurisdiction if the case is a class action, not if it is related to a class action. The fact that Courts might consider the amount in controversy in an u n d e rlyin g action is a wholly separate inquiry. This declaratory judgment action cannot be ju d ic ia lly construed to be that which it is not in order to create subject matter jurisdiction w h e re Congress did not intend it to exist. In light of the Court's finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) provides no subject matter ju ris d ic tio n over this action for the aforementioned reasons, the Court need not, and does not a d d re ss the other arguments advanced in support of the motion for remand. For the f o r e g o in g reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1 ) The Motion for Remand (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED. (2 ) All other pending motions are left for disposition by the Circuit Court of Coffee C o u n ty, Alabama after remand.
(3 ) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Alabama. (4 ) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the re m a n d . D O N E this the 5th day of March, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?