Driver v. Real Time Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Collection's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 11]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 4/6/2018. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MAHRES DRIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
REAL TIME SOLUTIONS, INC.; STATE
COLLECTIONS SERVICE, INC.;
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
INC., and TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-CV-268 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Defendant State Collection Service, Inc.’s 1 (“State
Collection”) Motion to Remand this case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
Associate Circuit Division. 2 For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant State Collection’s
Motion to Remand.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Mahres Driver filed suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
Associate Circuit Division. This is an action for statutory damages for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., and of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”)
removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446(a). State Collection
did not consent to Experian’s removal and filed the present Motion to Remand. Experian filed a

1

This Defendant was named in the Petition as “State Collections Service, Inc.” The Court will refer to this
Defendant by the name it uses in the Motion to Remand.
2

The Court notes that although Defendant State Collection’s Motion to Remand correctly states that this
case was removed from the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court, Associate Circuit Division, State of Missouri (St.
Louis County), Mot. ¶ 1, it asks that the case be remanded to the “Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, St. Charles
County Circuit Court, Associate Circuit Division.” The Court will construe this request as a drafting error.

response to State Collection’s Motion to Remand stating that it has no objection to remanding
the case to state court.
II.

Discussion

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases removed from state court to the extent
that this Court could have had original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)
(2012). Federal question jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff’s action “arises under” the laws of the
United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012). Removal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Where there are multiple defendants, all must consent to
removal within thirty days after being served with the initial pleading. Couzens v. Donohue, 854
F.3d 508, 513-14 (8th Cir. 2017); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). After removal, a non-removing
party may file a motion to remand the case “on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject
matter jurisdiction … within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section
1446(a).” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (2012). “[T]he failure of one defendant to consent renders the
removal defective.” Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2008).
Here, State Collection has timely objected and does not consent to removal to this Court,
rendering the removal defective under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Because all Defendants did
not join in the Notice of Removal or consent to remove this case and a timely motion to remand
was filed, the Court must remand the case to State Court.

-2-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Collection’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
[Doc. 11].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of April, 2018.

-3-