Hamden v. JB Houses LLC

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/15/2015. (Morril, Gregory)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TOWN OF HAMDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JB HOUSES, LLC,
Defendant.

Civil No. 3:15cv758 (JBA)

June 15, 2015

RULING GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT
Defendant JB Houses, LLC moves [Doc. # 10] to remand this action to the
Connecticut Superior Court. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion is granted
and this case is remanded to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven at
New Haven.
I.

Background
Plaintiff the Town of Hamden (the “Town”) filed this action in the Superior Court

on February 3, 2015, seeking enforcement of a $9,508 judgement lien that the Town
obtained against Defendant, the owner of an estate located at 25 Evergreen Avenue in
Hamden. (Complaint [Doc. # 1-1].) On May 5, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer and
Counterclaim [Doc. # 1-1], asserting that the fines and fees imposed by the Town leading
to the judgment lien were imposed in violation of the United States Constitution’s Equal
Protection Clause, because they were “applied only to Defendant because it was a
landlord renting to students.”
On May 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Petition of Removal [Doc. # 1], asserting that
removal was proper because the “Counterclaim Complaint alleges violations of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Pet.

Removal ¶ 3.) On June 1, 2015, Defendant filed this timely motion to remand. See 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack
of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of
removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
II.

Analysis
In its Petition of Removal, the Town asserted that removal was proper because

this Court would have original jurisdiction over JB Houses’ constitutional counterclaim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.” However, the federal removal statute does not authorize removal by the
Town on this basis. It provides:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). While § 1441(a) and “[s]everal [other] sections
permit removal by defendants . . . . [n]o section provides for removal by a plaintiff.”
Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir. 1993). “The federal courts
have strictly interpreted these limitations, often speaking of the right to remove as being
limited to ‘true’ defendants. Thus, plaintiffs cannot remove, even when they are in the
position of defendants with regard to a counterclaim asserted against them.” 14C Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3730 (4th ed.).

2

Because the Town was not authorized to remove this action to federal court on the
basis of the federal counterclaim asserted against it, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), Defendant’s
Motion [Doc. # 10] to Remand is GRANTED, see id. § 1447(c). The Clerk is directed to
remand this case to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven at New
Haven.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 15th day of June, 2015.

3