HAEMMERLE v. VERIZON NEW JERSEY INC, et al

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER remanding matter to Superior Court of NJ, Bergen County. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/7/14. (sr, )

CLOSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JASON HAEMMERLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERIZON NEW JERSEY INC. et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 14-3290 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the informal motion to remand for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction by Plaintiff Jason Haemmerle. Defendants Verizon New Jersey Inc. and
Christopher Mroz (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal and Complaint in this
Court on or about May 22, 2014. The Notice of Removal asserts that this Court has federal
subject matter jurisdiction over this action by virtue of claims arising under federal law, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Complaint contained sixteen claims, six arising under federal law and
ten arising under the law of the State of New Jersey.
On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which contains only claims
arising under the law of the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff then filed an informal motion asking
for the case to be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
In an action removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the removing party bears
the burden of demonstrating that there is federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004); Boyer v. Snap-On
Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990). Section 1441 must be strictly construed against
removal, with all doubts to be resolved in favor of remand. Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977
F.2d 848, 851 (3d Cir. 1992). Federal statutory law mandates that “if at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The Court,
moreover, has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction
over a case. Meritcare Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 1999),
overruled on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).
Because Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint which contains no claims arising
under federal law, and because there is no independent basis asserted for this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction over this case, this Court now lacks original jurisdiction over this case. In the
absence of original jurisdiction, this Court lacks the power to adjudicate this case, and it must be
remanded.
Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, this case shall be
remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 7th day of July, 2014
ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey.
s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.

2