WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. MCCAFFREY et al

Filing 12

Opinion and ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand; that this case is hereby REMANDED to New Jersey Superior Court for Morris County; that the Clerk of the Court CLOSE this matter. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 1/9/15. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. MCCAFFREY, HEATHER J.
MCCAFFREY, ZACHARY BONO, and
LOCAL 194-6 FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendants.

:
:
:
: Civil Case No. 14-6322 (FSH)
:
: OPINION & ORDER
:
: Date: January 9, 2015
:
:
:
:
:

HOCHBERG, District Judge:
This matter coming before the Court upon Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to
remand, (Dkt. No. 7); and the Court having reviewed the submissions of the parties and considered
the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78; and
It appearing that the present matter was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court for Morris
County October 7, 2014, (Dkt. No. 1-1); and
It appearing that Defendants Michael J. and Heather J. McCaffrey (“Removing
Defendants”) removed the matter to this Court on October 10, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, (Dkt. No. 1); and
It appearing that the parties agree that both Removing Defendants are citizens of the state
of New Jersey, (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 7-1, at 1); and

It appearing that defendants that are citizens of the state in which the action was brought
may not remove to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) 1;
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS on this 9th day of January, 2015,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 7) is hereby GRANTED; and it
is further
ORDERED that this case is hereby REMANDED to New Jersey Superior Court for
Morris County; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court CLOSE this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Hon. Faith S. Hochberg
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

1

Removing Defendants contend that the prohibition against defendant citizens of a forum state removing a
case to federal court does not apply here because the federal removal statute prohibits only citizen
defendants “properly joined and served” from removing such an action and they removed the action prior
to service of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Removing Defendants cite only non-precedential cases
in support of this position. See, e.g., Thomson v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., Civ. No. 06-6280, 2007 WL
1521138 (D.N.J. May 22, 2007). This Court, however, agrees with the reasoning articulated by Judges
Debevoise and Irenas in Sullivan v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 575 F. Supp. 2d 640 (D.N.J. 2008), and
Williams v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 426 (D.N.J. 2014), respectively, that such a literal reading
of the statute would lead to “absurd [and] bizarre results” that are “plainly inconsistent with the drafters’
intentions.” In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 456 F.3d 328, 338 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d
182, 187 (3d Cir. 2002).

2