Moore v. MedShare, Inc. et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS that this matter is REMANDED to Fayette Circuit Court and the 7 motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/3/2014.(SCD)cc: COR,Pro Se Dft(via US Mail),Fayette CC(via US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
MELANIE MOORE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-212-KKC
Plaintiff,
v.
Opinion and Order
MEDSHARE, INC., et. al,
Defendant.
*********
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (DE 7)
filed pro se by the defendant and counter-claimaint James Faller. Because this action was not
properly removed from state court, the motion will be denied and the action will be remanded to
Fayette Circuit Court.
This action was commenced in Fayette County Circuit Court by Melanie Moore who
filed suit against MedShare, Inc. and five individual defendants including Faller, who are
apparently employed by MedShare. Moore was a patient at MedShare. In her complaint, she
asserts that she was injured after she underwent treatments there. She asserts state-law claims of
breach of contract, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against each of the
defendants.
The defendant James Faller removed the action to this Court asserting that this Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a). “The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is
determined by examining the complaint as it existed at the time of removal,” Harper v.
AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210 (6th Cir.2004).
Section 1332(a) grants federal courts jurisdiction over actions in which the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. Diversity jurisdiction
requires complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same
state. See U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1089 (6th Cir.1992).
Moore and all of the defendants named in her complaint are Kentucky citizens. Section 1331
grants this Court jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under federal law. Moore asserts no
federal claims in her complaint. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction over the claims in
Moore’s complaint and the action was improperly removed.
After removing this action, Faller filed a counterclaim in which he purports to assert
certain federal claims. The counterclaims will not be considered for purposes of determining
federal jurisdiction. This is because Faller has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction through the
removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441. That statute permits the removal of state actions over which
this court has original jurisdiction. Faller has attempted to remove Moore’s state action but, as
explained, this Court does not have jurisdiction over that action and removal is therefore
improper.
Furthermore, even if Faller had first filed the counterclaim in state court and then
removed the action, this Court would not have jurisdiction. This is because federal-question
jurisdiction cannot be based on a counterclaim. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 62
(2009) (“Under our precedent construing § 1331 . . . counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively
on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal-court cognizance.”); Wells Fargo
2
Delaware Trust Co., N.A. v. Lee, 2013 WL 6909961, at *5 (“The law is clear that federalquestion jurisdiction over a removed action cannot be based on a counterclaim.”); 14B Charles
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper & Joan E. Steinman, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3722 (4th ed.2009) (“Neither is it sufficient for the federal issue to enter the case
through a counterclaim asserted by the defendant.)
For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that this matter is REMANDED to Fayette
Circuit Court and the motion for temporary restraining order (DE 7) is DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2013.
3
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?