Brown v. Johnson-Johnson Pharmaceutical/Janssen Pharmaceutical et al
ORDER denying 4 Motion to remove state court action. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/26/12. (Bauer, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOHNSON-JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL/ :
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL, et al., :
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-701 (JBA)
RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff asks the court to exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction and transfer a case he filed against the same
defendant in state court to this court.
The court construes the
motion as a request for removal of the state court action to
Removal is governed by federal statutes.
See 28 U.S.C. §§
Only a named defendant has statutory authority to
remove a case from state court to federal court.
See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1441(a), 1446(a); Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Doe, No.
3:10-cv-1490(CSH), 2010 WL 4683923, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Nov. 4,
2010); see also Bui Phu Xuan v. Fort Worth Star Telegram, 277
Fed. Appx. 452, 454, 2008 WL 1976630, at *2 (5th Cir. 2008)
(noting that a plaintiff could not remove a case because the
removal statute only permits removal “by the defendant”).
plaintiff also is the plaintiff in the state court action.
he chose the forum and cannot remove the case to federal court.
The plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #4] is DENIED.1
SO ORDERED this 26th day of September 2012, at New Haven,
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge
The court notes that the defendants in the state court
action filed a notice of removal on September 26, 2012. See
Brown v. Johnson and Johnson Phoarmceutical Inc., et al., No.
HHD-CV12-5036434-S, http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov (last visited
Sept. 26, 2012).
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?