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)

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