THE ESTATE OF JEROME IOZZIA v. POLICE OFFICERS TO BE IDENTIFIED
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPLIES TO BOTH ACTIONS: ORDERED that the matters are deemed conclusively closed. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/30/2014. (tf, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THE ESTATE OF
JEROME IOZZIA, et al.,
: Civil Action No. 14-3729 (RMB)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
THE ESTATE OF
JEROME IOZZIA, et al.,
: Civil Action No. 14-4000 (RMB)
TO BE IDENTIFIED,
: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
APPLIES TO BOTH ACTIONS
These two matters come before the Court upon Plaintiffs’
application seeking remand of their original and amended
complaints to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.
See Estate of Iozzia v. New Jersey, Civ. Action No. 14-3729
(RMB), Docket Entry No. 8.
The remand statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447,
enables a federal court (exercising jurisdiction over a matter
properly removed from the state forum to the federal forum) to
remand that matter back to the state forum, i.e., to the forum
where the matter originated.
The Court sets forth a brief tutorial for the benefit of
In the event a plaintiff commences a civil matter in
the state forum, and the plaintiff’s claims supply a viable basis
for federal jurisdiction, the defendant may, but need not, seek
removal of that matter to the federal forum in accordance with
the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1441 or § 1443.
a notice of removal, once filed, automatically severs the state
court’s jurisdiction over the original state action, the
plaintiff may seek remand of the matter to the state forum,
provided that the plaintiff does so in accordance with the
requirements set forth § 1447.
In the event the plaintiff’s
application for removal is proper and meritorious, the federal
court grants the plaintiff’s application and remands the matter
to the state forum, hence restoring the state court’s
jurisdiction over the original action commenced by the plaintiff.
In contrast, in the event the plaintiff commences a civil
action in the federal forum, the federal court has nothing to
remand to the state court.
In other words, the federal court
cannot remand what was not removed.
Accordingly, here, this Court is without power to remand
Plaintiffs’ complaints to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, because this matter was not remanded to this Court.
That said, both of these actions have been administratively
terminated, and Plaintiffs have no duty or obligation to proceed
with litigating their claims here.
It is Plaintiffs’ right to
conclusively withdraw their claims at any time prior to their
final adjudication and, upon such withdrawal, to have those
claims litigated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
The Court interprets Plaintiffs’ instant application
seeking remand as a request to proceed with their cases in state
IT IS, therefore, on this 30th day of July 2014,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ application docketed in Estate of
Iozzia v. New Jersey, Civ. Action No. 14-3729 (RMB), as Docket
Entry No. 8, is construed as Plaintiffs’ application seeking
withdrawal of all their claims, without prejudice to litigating
those claims in the state forum; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ application is granted; and it is
ORDERED that the above-captioned matters are deemed
conclusively closed; and it is further
ORDERED that no statement in this Memorandum Opinion and
Order should be construed as expressing this Court’s opinion as
to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims for the purposes of
Plaintiffs’ state court litigation; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon the parties by means of electronic delivery.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
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?