Bell County Board of Elections v. Bell County Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs motion, R. 3 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This case is REMANDED to the Bell Circuit Court and shall be STRICKEN from this Court's active docket. The plaintiff's motion for costs is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 10/25/11.(SYD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON
BELL COUNTY BOARD OF
ELECTIONS,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Civil No. 11-284-ART
)
v.
)
) MEMORANDUM OPINION &
BELL COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE
)
ORDER
DEPARTMENT, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
*** *** *** ***
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” This is an oft-repeated
mantra, and for good reason. With few exceptions, federal courts can only decide
cases that arise under federal law or involve diverse parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1332. The parties agree that neither source of federal jurisdiction is present here.
The defendant, Bell County Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., however,
removed this case from state court claiming that the federal court has jurisdiction
because the complaint violates a federal injunction. But any such jurisdiction is
ancillary at best. And, a party cannot remove a state court complaint based on
ancillary jurisdiction alone. Remand is necessary.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the Fire Department sued the members of the Bell County Fiscal
Court in federal court alleging that the County unconstitutionally seized the Fire
Department’s real property. See No. 07-209, R. 1. That suit ended when the Court
entered an order permanently enjoining the County from, among other things,
controlling the Fire Department’s property. No. 07-209, R. 18. The Court expressly
retained federal jurisdiction to supervise and enforce the terms of the injunction and
the settlement agreement. Id. ¶ 6. Three years later, the two parties returned to
federal court when Bell County alleged the Fire Department breached its contract for
fire protection services. See No. 10-162, R. 1. That case is still pending before this
Court. Most recently, the Bell County Board of Elections sued the Fire Department in
state court claiming the Fire Department may not charge the Board to use fire stations
as polling places in the upcoming general election. See No. 11-284, R. 1-3. The Fire
Department now wants to remove that case because the Board of Elections is
attempting to violate the 2007 permanent injunction. Id., R. 7.
DISCUSSION
The removal statute requires original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A
federal court’s power to “stop proceedings in a suit lawfully begun and pending in
another [court], and to take such suit within its own jurisdiction for further hearing
and final disposition, is the exercise of an unusual and high prerogative, and must be
based on clear statutory authority.” Gilmore v. Herrick, 93 F. 525, 525 (C.C.N.D.
Ohio 1899) (Taft, J.). But there has never been “language in any removal statute
which justifies removal of a cause from state court to a federal court on the ground
that it is ancillary to a suit in federal court.” Id. Thus, a federal court cannot exercise
removal jurisdiction—even to enforce a previous federal court ruling—if there is no
independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the state court suit.
See Rivet v.
Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 472 (1998) (holding removal was improper when
2
the defendant claimed a prior federal judgment barred the plaintiff from pursuing a
state law claim); see also City of Warren v. City of Detroit, 495 F.3d 282, 286 n.2 (6th
Cir. 2007) (“Ancillary jurisdiction is insufficient to support removal.”).
The parties agree that there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction
here.
This dispute is between two Kentucky parties and turns exclusively on
Kentucky law. The Fire Department says removal is proper, however, because, in
2007, this Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction’s terms. No. 11-284,
R. 7 at 7-8. Federal courts certainly have the authority to enforce their prior decrees,
even when doing so would require the Court to adjudicate state law claims. See
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 379-80 (1994). Moreover,
normal prohibitions against federal courts enjoining state court proceedings do not
apply in such circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (“A court of the United States
may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except . . . to protect
or effectuate its judgments.”). But when a federal court enforces its judgments, it
does so based on ancillary, not original, jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379-80.
Thus, removal on this basis is improper.
The requirement of original jurisdiction for removal also avoids unnecessary
interpretations of state law by federal courts. Avoiding “needless decisions of state
law” promotes comity between the federal and state courts as well as “justice between
the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.” United
Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Although it may seem like
semantics, the difference between removal (where jurisdiction is lacking) and
enforcement (where jurisdiction exists) is important. If the Fire Department removed
3
this suit, this Court would be forced to rule on the meaning of a Kentucky statute
absent the presence of any federal issue. By contrast, if the Fire Department moved
to enforce the 2007 injunction in the underlying case, this Court would simply be
interpreting its own order.
Lastly, the Board of Elections has moved for costs incurred because of the
removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A district court should award costs for removal
only when it would be “fair and equitable under all the circumstances.” Morris v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 985 F.2d 238, 240 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Morgan
Guar. Trust Co. v. Republic of Palau, 971 F.2d 917, 923-24 (2d Cir. 1992)). For the
reasons provided during the hearing, an award of costs would be inappropriate here.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion, R. 3, is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This case is REMANDED to the Bell Circuit
Court and shall be STRICKEN from this Court’s active docket. The plaintiff’s
motion for costs is DENIED.
This the 25th day of October, 2011.
4
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?