Pete v. Fro-Yo Corporation et al

Filing 15

ORDER and REASONS denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/4/2014. (cbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONOTOR MARCEL PETE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 13-5790

FRO-YO CORPORATION, ET AL.

SECTION "N" (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is a motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Monotor Marcel
Pete. See Rec. Doc. 7. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Rec. Doc.
7) is DENIED.
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if a federal court would
have had original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Significantly, however, "federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 459 (2001). Furthermore, federal courts "must presume that a suit lies
outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party
seeking the federal forum." Id. Thus, in the context of actions removed from state court, the
removing party bears the burden of demonstrating the federal court's jurisdiction and that removal
was proper. See Manguno v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and applicable law, the Court
finds Plaintiff's motion to remand to lack merit. Specifically, Plaintiff's petition includes claims
asserted under federal statutes, i.e., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§1961, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), both of which "arise under" the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for purposes of this Court's federal question
original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Supplemental jurisdiction is provided relative to "all
other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form
part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." See 28
U.S.C. §1367. Accordingly, because the Court would have had original and supplemental subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, if they initially had been filed in federal court, rather than
state court, the Court finds, on the showing made, that Defendant Katherine Sutton's removal was
proper. See 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied.1
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of June 2014.

__________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Although 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) permits federal district court to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under certain circumstances, none of those circumstances are
alleged to be applicable here. See 28 U.S.C. §1367
2