Olhausen Billiard Manufacturing, Inc. v. Averitt Express, Inc.
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/7/2014. (kns, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
*
OLHAUSEN BILLIARD
MANUFACTURING, INC.
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
Case No.: GJH-14-03085
*
AVERITT EXPRESS, INC.
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On or about August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Olhausen Billiard Manufacturing, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Averitt Express, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the District Court
for Montgomery County. See ECF No. 2. Defendant removed the case to this Court on
September 30, 2014. See ECF No. 1. After granting Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite
Statement (see ECF No. 15), Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (see ECF No. 20). Upon
review of the amended complaint, it is clear that the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter. The Court therefore REMANDS this case, sua sponte, to the
District Court for Montgomery County for further proceedings.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). There is no
presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction. See Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d
394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999). Therefore, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
1
1447(c). Such a remand order may be issued sua sponte. See Crawford v. Mokhtari, 842 F. Supp.
840, 843 (D. Md.) aff’d, 30 F.3d 129 (4th Cir. 1994) (“The Court, moreover, has an obligation to
act sua sponte with regard to the propriety of such jurisdiction.”); see also Ellenburg v. Spartan
Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (“a remand order based on a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, whether sua sponte or not, falls within the scope of § 1447(c) and
therefore is not reviewable by a court of appeals”). Here, the Court has determined that it does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The case must therefore be remanded to the
District Court for Montgomery County
Defendant removed this case under 28 U.S.C § 1445 (b) claiming that this Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C §1337 (a). Neither of these statutes is applicable. First, the Court
does not have jurisdiction under §1337 (a), which provides, in relevant part, that the “district
courts [] have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of
Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and
monopolies . . . .” 28 U.S.C §1337 (a) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint
does not involve claims “arising under any Act of Congress.” Instead, Plaintiff’s amended
complaint involves claims for breach of contract and negligence, which do not trigger
jurisdiction under § 1337(a).
Additionally, removal under 28 U.S.C § 1445 (b) was improper. Section 1445 (b)
provides that a “civil action in any State court against a carrier or its receivers or trustees to
recover damages for delay, loss, or injury of shipments, arising under section 11706 or 14706 of
title 49, may not be removed to any district court of the United States unless the matter in
controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C § 1445 (b) (emphasis
added). Even if this case arose under 49 U.S.C. §§ 11706 or 14706 (and it does not), the amount
2
in controversy – $7,276.23 (see ECF No. 20 at 2) – does not exceed $10,000, making this case
non-removable under § 1445 (b). Removal of this case was therefore improper. As such, the
Court orders that this case be remanded to the District Court for Montgomery County for want of
subject matter jurisdiction.1
Dated: November 7, 2014
/S/
George Jarrod Hazel
United States District Judge
1
The Court also notes that neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction are
present here. As mentioned, this case involves claims for breach of contract and negligence, and
therefore does not implicate federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, as
noted, the amount in controversy in this case is $7,276.23 (see ECF No. 20 at 2), far below the
$75,000 threshold necessary to invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
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?