Scheanette v. Smith
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM RULING re 1 Notice of Removal filed by Timothy Scheanette. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 08/14/2014. (crt,Yocum, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
TIMOTHY SCHEANETTE
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2471
VERSUS
*
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
ANN SMITH d/b/a ANTIQUE ACRES
MOBILE HOME PARK
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
MEMORANDUM RULING
Upon review of the record, and for reasons detailed below, the court finds that it lacks
subject matter and removal jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and therefore, is compelled to
remand the case to the City Court for the City of Monroe, Louisiana whence it was improperly
removed.1
Background
On April 21, 2014, Timothy Scheanette filed the instant petition for relief against Ann
Smith d/b/a Antique Acres Mobile Home Park (“Smith”) in the City Court for the City of
Monroe, Louisiana. Scheanette alleged that Smith violated the “Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law,” and sought “relief of movable,” $5,000 in restitution, court costs,
filing fees, and penalties. See Petition [doc. # 1-1].
At the July 14, 2014, trial of this matter, the presiding city court judge, the Honorable
1
As this matter is not excepted within 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any
claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
order is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this court.
Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R. 74.1(W).
Tammy Lee, advised Scheanette that he had filed his petition in the wrong jurisdiction, and that
the court would sign a motion to transfer once he filed the necessary paperwork. (Minutes from
July 14, 2014, Proceedings [doc. # 1-5]). On July 28, 2014, Scheanette duly filed with the city
court a “Motion to Remove and Transfer.” [doc. # 1-6]. On August 2, 2014, a Monroe City
Court judge (the signature is illegible) ordered the instant matter removed and transferred to this
court. See Aug. 2, 2014, Order. [doc. # 1].
Law and Analysis
The removal statute provides, in pertinent part, that
[a] defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court
shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division
within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process,
pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
As an initial matter, the court observes that plaintiff initiated the instant removal, when according
to the plain terms of the statute, only a defendant(s) may remove a matter from state or city court
to federal court. McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 1982) (citations
omitted). Moreover, as the party initiating this action in federal court, plaintiff was required to
pay the $400 filing and administrative fee, but has not done so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914.
Furthermore, plaintiff filed the underlying motion to transfer/remove in city court, when,
by statute, the notice of removal must be initiated/filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
Also, and most importantly, because plaintiff did not file a notice of removal, the record does not
contain a statement of grounds to support removal or the exercise of federal subject matter
jurisdiction.
2
It is axiomatic that the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction bears the burden of
demonstrating its existence. See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001);
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). “[T]here is a presumption against
subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal court.”
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). The two most common ways
to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction are via federal question and diversity. 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 & 1332. Here, however, the court discerns neither a federal question on the face of the
pleadings,2 nor requisite allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction.3
Federal courts are obliged to examine the basis for the exercise of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Smith v. Texas Children’s Hospital, 172 F.3d 923, 925 (5 th Cir. 1999). A lack of
subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Giles v. Nylcare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d
332, 336 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, a court must raise the issue sua sponte if it discovers it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that, “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” Those circumstances are present here.
2
“[F]ederal-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 properly pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 474,
118 S.Ct. 921, 925 (1998) (citations omitted). Section 1331 jurisdiction is properly invoked when
plaintiff pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235 (2006).
3
For purposes of diversity, “[a]ll plaintiffs must be diverse in citizenship from all
defendants . . .” and the parties’ citizenship must be “distinctly and affirmatively alleged.” Farrell
Const. Co. v. Jefferson Parish, La., 896 F.2d 136, 139-140 (5th Cir. 1990); Getty Oil, Div. Of
Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)
(emphasis in citing source). Moreover, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
3
Conclusion
In sum, the court finds that the instant removal was procedurally defective and
improvident. In addition, the removing party failed to allege facts sufficient to support federal
subject matter jurisdiction. In the absence of removal and subject matter jurisdiction, remand is
required. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the matter will be remanded, via separate
judgment, to the City Court for the City of Monroe, Louisiana, whence it was removed.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 14th day of August 2014.
__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?