Goodrich v. Johal et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF REMAND: case remanded to Circuit Court for Van Buren County, Michigan ; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KIRK B. GOODRICH,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
-v)
)
GURPREET SINGH JOHAL and
)
A C TRANSPORT,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

No. 1:12-cv-572
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY

ORDER OF REMAND FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Plaintiff initiated this action on March 28, 2012, by filing his complaint in the Circuit Court
of Van Buren County, Michigan. On June 6, 2012, Defendants removed this action to federal court
under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
ANALYSIS
“As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise only those powers authorized
by the Constitution and statute.” Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). Federal courts
have an obligation to examine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action. See
Argaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (“The objection that a federal court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on
its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.”);
Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389 (1998) (“No court can ignore the defect [in
it’s jurisdiction]; rather a court, noticing the defect, must raise the matter on its own”). When an
action is removed from state court, a federal court must consider whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction. See Probus v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 234 F.App’x 404, 406 (6th Cir. 2007). If a
district court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed action, the action
must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Removal statutes should be narrowly construed because federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction and because removal of a case raises significant federalism concerns. Shamrock Oil &
Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941); Palkow v CSX Transp., Inc., 431 F.3d 543, 555 (6th
Cir. 2005). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals follows a policy that “all doubts as to the propriety
of removal are resolved in favor of remand.” Jacada (Europe), Ltd. v. Int’l Mktg. Strategies, Inc.,
401 F.3d 701, 704 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Coyne v. American Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 493 (6th
Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts personal-injury claims based on Defendants’ roles in an
automobile accident. According to the complaint, Plaintiff, a police officer, was attending to an
accident on January 4, 2011, when Defendant Johal’s semi-truck went out of control and hit one of
the crashed cars, which then hit Plaintiff, causing him serious injury. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Johal acted negligently by driving faster than weather conditions admitted. Further, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant A C Transport, Mr. Johal’s employer, is statutorily liable for Mr. Johal’s negligence.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum
for this Court.” (Compl., ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2.)
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to federal district court when the
federal district court would have original jurisdiction over that suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Defendants argue this Court has original jurisdiction over the complaint on diversity grounds.
Under § 1332(a), a federal court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the matter is between citizens of different states. The party
seeking to remove the action to federal court has the burden of establishing that the district court has
jurisdiction. Long v. Bando Mfg. Of America, Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 757 (6th Cir. 2000); Conrad v.
Robinson, 871 F.2d 612, 614 (6th Cir. 1989) (holding defendant has the burden of establishing that
2

removal was proper).
Defendants assert that Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan and they are instead citizens of the
Province of Ontario, Canada. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1 ¶ 2.) This assertion appears to contain
an error, however; instead of referring to Defendant Johal, the notice of removal discusses the
citizenship of “Defendant Jerzy Durda.” (Id. ¶ 2.B.) This person is not a party to this action, and
neither the notice of removal nor the complaint itself alleges the citizenship of Defendant Johal
himself. As such, the notice of removal does not support diversity jurisdiction, and this court must
remand the case.
The notice of removal appears to contain an additional deficiency, however. The complaint
itself does not support a finding that the amount in controversy here “more likely than not” exceeds
$75,000. Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co., 977 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993) overruled on other grounds
by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). Defendants’ notice of removal alleges
that “Plaintiff is, in reality, seeking damages well in excess of $75,000[,] as plaintiff’s counsel has
represented that this matter is valued well in excess of $75,000” (Not of Removal, ECF No. 1 ¶
2.D.), but it provides neither an affidavit nor any other support for this bare allegation.1 Without any
such support, the court cannot find “by the preponderance of the evidence” that the amount in
controversy is sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B).
Finally, the court notes that the state-court complaint was filed more than 30 days before
Defendants filed their notice of removal. Defendants allege that their notice is timely, “as it is filed
less than 30 days after the last defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint” (Not. of
Removal, ECF No. 1 ¶ 3), but they do not allege when the defendants were served and the record

1

The “jurisdictional minimum” alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint is $25,000. Mich. Comp.
Laws § 600.8301.
3

before this court does not clarify the issue. It is not immediately clear whether this allegation
satisfies section 1446’s requirement of a “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,” but
the court need not decide this issue today because the court does not appear to have subject-matter
jurisdiction for the reasons discussed above.
CONCLUSION
Because Defendants have not sufficiently alleged that the parties to this suit are in fact
diverse and that the amount in controversy in the complaint exceeds $75,000, this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Therefore, this action is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of Van Buren County, Michigan. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

June 11, 2012

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge

4