Bath, v. Vital Recovery Services Inc.,

Filing 18

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Remand to State Court, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 11/27/12. (alvsl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 12-cv-02215-RBJ-KMT BRIAN EDMOND BATH, Plaintiff, v. VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand” (Doc. No. 16, filed November 20, 2012). Although not yet fully briefed, the court has decided this matter is nonetheless appropriate for review and ruling. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 C (“Nothing in this rule precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed.”). Plaintiff seeks to “remand” his case to Colorado Small Claims Court on the basis that he improperly brought a case in federal court that in no way could exceed the $75,000 threshold applicable to federal diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 16.) However, remand in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447, which requires a case to have been removed to federal court in the first place. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff commenced this action in federal court, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., which is a federal statute. (See Doc. No. 1, filed August 20, 2012.) As the case was originally brought in federal court, rather than removed from state court, remand on the basis of a defect in removal is inapplicable. Furthermore, even if remand were available to Plaintiff, jurisdiction is proper in federal court because the claims here are based on federal statutory law.1 Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand” (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. Dated this 27th day of November, 2012. 1 Indeed, Plaintiff appears to reference federal question jurisdiction in his Complaint. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1.) Although he refers to “15 U.S.C. § 1331,” that statute concerns cigarette labeling, of which Plaintiff’s claims have nothing to do with. Plaintiff presumably intends to refer to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2

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?