Vogler v. Nalty et al

Filing 20

ORDER. ORDERED that this action is remanded to the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado where it was filed as Case No. 2015CV32932. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/14/15. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02569-PAB
MARK VOGLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN NALTY,
LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER

In every case and at every stage of a proceeding, a federal Court must satisfy
itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City and Cnty. of Denver , 628 F.2d
1289, 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 1980). Therefore, the Court takes up this matter sua
sponte on the Notice of Removal filed by defendants Lyft, Inc. and Stephen Nalty on
November 23, 2015 [Docket No. 1]. Defendants seek to remove a personal injury
action filed against them on August 17, 2015 in the District Court for the City and
County of Denver, Colorado by plaintiff Mark Vogler (the “state court action”). 1 Docket
No. 1 at 1.
As grounds for removal, defendants state that this Court has original subject
matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). Docket No. 1

1

Case No. 2015CV32932.

at 2, ¶ 9. Defendants assert that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff is a
citizen of Indiana, Id. at 2-3, ¶ 10, defendant Stephen Nalty is a citizen of Colorado, id.
at 3, ¶ 11, and that defendant Lyft is a citizen of California and Delaware. Id., ¶ 12.
The remand of cases removed to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). See, e.g., Miller v. Lambeth, 443 F.3d 757, 759 (10th Cir. 2006). Section
1447(c) states, in pertinent part: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c)
“In addition to the requirements of original jurisdiction, § 1441(b)(2) lays out the
‘forum-defendant rule,’ which provides that a case may not be removed on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the state-court
action was brought.” Aguayo v. AMCO Ins. Co., 59 F. Supp. 3d 1225, 1248 (D.N.M.
2014) (citing Brazell v. Waite, 525 Fed. App’x 878, 884 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished)
(“[W]e note that § 1441(b)(2)–the so-called forum-defendant rule–provides as a
separate requirement that ‘[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of
[diversity] jurisdiction . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly
joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2))).
Defendant Stephen Nalty is a citizen of Colorado. Therefore, removal is
improper under the forum-defendant rule and this case must be remanded. “[T]he
violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect and not a mere procedural
irregularity capable of being waived.” Horton v. Conklin, 431 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir.

2

2005).
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that this action is remanded to the District Court for the City and
County of Denver, Colorado where it was filed as Case No. 2015CV32932.

DATED December 14, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3