Young v. CitiFinancial Servicing LLC et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Marlyn Young's "Motion to Remove or Dismiss Defendant's Civil Action from Federal Court to State Court" 13 , in which Young seeks to remand this removed action back to State court, is DENIED. A review of the file shows there to be no procedural defect in the removal process, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446; and federal subject-matter jurisdiction appears on the face of Young's complaint given his claim that de fendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., and the Credit CARD Act, Pub. L. No. 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009), with sufficient factual allegations giving rise to his claim. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). (where federal question is presented on face of properly pleaded complaint, federal jurisdiction exists and a defendant may remove case from State court to Federal court). If Young wishes to dismiss his federal claims from this action, he may seek to do so by separate motion. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on September 27, 2016. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARLYN YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16 CV 1171 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Marlyn Young’s “Motion to
Remove or Dismiss Defendant’s Civil Action from Federal Court to State Court”
[13], in which Young seeks to remand this removed action back to State court, is
DENIED. A review of the file shows there to be no procedural defect in the
removal process, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446; and federal subject-matter jurisdiction
appears on the face of Young’s complaint given his claim that defendants violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., and the Credit CARD Act,
Pub. L. No. 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009), with sufficient factual allegations giving
rise to his claim. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987).
(where federal question is presented on face of properly pleaded complaint, federal
jurisdiction exists and a defendant may remove case from State court to Federal
court).

If Young wishes to dismiss his federal claims from this action, he may seek to
do so by separate motion.

_________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 27th day of September, 2016.

-2-