Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan v. Danby Products, Inc. et al
ORDER Granting Motion to Remand 38 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,
Case No. 17-10069
Hon. Denise Page Hood
DANBY PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND [#38]
On or about December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed this matter in the 18th Circuit
Court for the State of Michigan (Bay County). On January 10, 2017, Defendants
Danby Products, Ltd. and Danby Products, Inc. removed the case to this Court, and
it was assigned to Judge Thomas L. Ludington. At the time of removal, the Court had
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (because Count Four alleged
a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 (complete diversity of parties). On February 17, 2017, the case was randomly
reassigned to the undersigned pursuant to Administrative Order 17-006.
On March 10, 2017, the Court entered a stipulated order allowing Plaintiff to
amend its complaint and add defendants, including Defendant ABC Appliance, Inc.
(“ABC”) and New Widetech Industries, Co. (“New Widetech”). [Dkt. No. 6] Plaintiff
filed its Amended Complaint on March 16, 2017. [Dkt. No. 9] On December 11,
2017, New Widetech filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. No. 32] Plaintiff then filed the
following documents on January 5, 2018: (1) a Second Amended Complaint, wherein
Plaintiff amended the prior complaint by removing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
claim [Dkt. No. 36]; (2) a response to the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 37]; and (3)
a Motion to Remand to State Court (“Motion to Remand”). [Dkt. No. 38] New
Widetech filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 2018. [Dkt. No. 44]
No party has filed a response or objection to the Motion to Remand or the Amended
Motion to Dismiss.
It is undisputed that ABC is a Michigan company with corporate headquarters
in Michigan. It is undisputed and unchallenged that Plaintiff has filed a Second
Amended Complaint that does not include any claim based on a federal question. For
the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s cause of action and remands it to the 18th Circuit Court for the State
of Michigan (Bay County).
The Court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332
(diversity of citizenship) when Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on March 16,
2017. By adding ABC as a Defendant (an amendment agreed to by all parties to the
action at the time), diversity of citizenship was lost because both Plaintiff and ABC
are Michigan companies with headquarters in Michigan.
As to the subject matter jurisdiction based on Section 1331 (federal question),
Plaintiff’s first two complaints included a claim based on a federal statute, the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301. In the Second Amended Complaint,
however, there are no claims arising out of the federal Constitution or a federal statute
or regulation. Based on the absence of any federal question, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331.
Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s cause of action, and the Court must remand Plaintiff’s cause of action to
the Court from which it was removed, the 18th Circuit Court for the State of Michigan
(Bay County). The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and because the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court does not address the
Amended Motion to Dismiss.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court [Dkt. No.
38] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause of action is REMANDED to the
18th Circuit Court for the State of Michigan (Bay County).
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 9, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 9, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?