Federal National Mortgage Association v. Brinkman et al
Filing
7
ORDER - Defendants' motion to consolidate 5 is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. This action is REMANDED to the Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 02/14/13. (bjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 13-CV-0291 (PJS/SER)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
CAROL M. BRINKMAN, RANDY S.
BRINKMAN, JOHN DOE, MARY ROE,
ABC CORPORATION, and PRINCE SONG
CAMBILARGIU,
Defendants.
Defendants Carol and Randy Brinkman and Prince Song Cambilargiu filed a notice of
removal of this eviction proceeding, alleging that removal is proper on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. The Brinkmans allege, however, that they are residents and citizens of
Minnesota. Id. Because it appeared to the Court that removal was improper under the forumdefendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), the Court ordered defendants to show cause why this
case should not be remanded. ECF No. 4; see Horton v. Conklin, 431 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir.
2005) (forum-defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect that may not be waived).
Defendants filed a response arguing that (1) there is complete diversity between the
parties; (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and (3) there is federal-question
jurisdiction because the case involves interstate commerce, defendants may have some defenses
arising under federal law, and plaintiff is a bank.
Defendants’ first two arguments have nothing to do with the issue before the Court. Even
if there is complete diversity and the jurisdictional amount in controversy is met, the forum-
defendant rule nevertheless prohibits removal jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest
properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). As noted, the Brinkmans allege that they are citizens of
Minnesota, and so the forum-defendant rule bars removal.
As for defendants’ argument that there is federal-question jurisdiction, the short answer is
that, under the well-pleaded-complaint rule, “a federal question must appear on the face of the
plaintiff’s complaint in order to create federal question jurisdiction.” Johnson v. MFA Petroleum
Co., 701 F.3d 243, 247 (8th Cir. 2012). The fact that federal law may provide a defense does not
create federal jurisdiction. Id. Likewise, federal-question jurisdiction cannot be premised on an
actual or anticipated counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60-61 (2009). And no
federal statute gives this Court jurisdiction over every case brought by a bank or every case
involving interstate commerce. The complaint in this case makes clear that this is a gardenvariety eviction proceeding arising solely under state law, and accordingly there is no federalquestion jurisdiction.
Defendants’ removal petition — and their arguments against remand — are frivolous.
Defendants are warned that any further attempt to remove this case to federal court will likely
result in sanctions being assessed against defendants.
Finally, defendants have filed a motion to consolidate this action with another action
currently pending in this District. ECF No. 5. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, however, it
must remand this case to state court. Defendants’ motion to consolidate is therefore denied for
lack of jurisdiction.
-2-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files and records herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1.
Defendants’ motion to consolidate [ECF No. 5] is DENIED for lack of
jurisdiction.
2.
This action is REMANDED to the Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial
District.
Dated: February 14, 2013
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-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?