Revere Investments LLC v. Briner et al

Filing 21

ORDER remanding case to the Connecticut superior court. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on June 26, 2013. (Gentile, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
REVERE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK BRINER, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:13CV706(AVC)

ORDER REMANDING CASE
The intervenor plaintiff, Roger L. Saunders, has filed a
motion to remand this action to the Connecticut Superior Court,
Complex Litigation Docket, in the Judicial District of Waterbury
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Saunders argues that the case
has been improperly removed from state court because the federal
question upon which removal is based was not made part of the
operative complaint. Rather, the federal question was introduced
into the state court proceedings by the intervening plaintiff’s
proposed complaint that accompanied his motion to intervene. The
defendants, Clark Briner and Revere Capital, LLC (collectively
“the defendants”), oppose the motion, arguing that Suanders
lacks standing to file a motion to remand, and that removal is
not premature. For the reasons that follow, the court concludes
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and
that it should be remanded.

FACTS
The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Connecticut Superior
Court containing only state causes of action on November 16,
2012. On April 30, 2013, Saunders filed a motion to intervene in
the state court action. The motion to intervene included a
proposed complaint that contained a claim arising under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a). Before the state court ruled on the motion to
intervene, the defendants removed the case to this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides in pertinent part that “any
civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district
court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.” Thus, a civil
case filed in state court may only be removed under § 1441(a) if
the case could have been brought in federal court and the
federal court would have had original subject matter
jurisdiction. The presence or absence of federal-question
jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule,
which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
2

well-pleaded complaint. Rivet v. Regions Bank of L.A., 522 U.S.
470, 475 (1998); Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392-94 (1987); Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211
U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
Here, the defendants removed this action before the motion
to intervene was ruled on. Therefore, Saunders’ proposed cause
of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) included in his motion to
intervene has not become part of the operative complaint.
Because the operative complaint does not contain a federal cause
of action, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires the court to remand any case
it does not have jurisdiction over, regardless of whether a
party files a motion to remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any
time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”). Accordingly, the court does not need to address the
defendants’ argument regarding Saunders’ standing to file a
motion to remand.

3

CONCLUSION
This case is hereby remanded to the Connecticut Superior
Court, Complex Litigation Docket, for the Judicial District of
Waterbury.
So ordered this 26th day of June 2013, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
_____/s/_
__
Alfred V. Covello
United States District Judge

4