BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. LUKOWIAK et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 4/22/2014. (jjc)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
PETER A. LUKOWIAK, JR., et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2040 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE PLAINTIFF BANK brought this foreclosure action in state
court.
(See dkt. entry no. 1-1, Compl.)
The defendants removed
this action to this Court based on jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1332, as, inter alia, (1) the plaintiff is
deemed to be a California citizen, and (2) the defendants are New
Jersey citizens.
(See dkt. entry no. 1, Notice of Removal at 2-
4.)
THE REMOVAL is barred by the forum-defendant rule.
Pursuant
to the forum-defendant rule, a “civil action otherwise removable
solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) . . .
may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly
joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in
which such action is brought”.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); see
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 (2005) (stating
“[d]efendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of
citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named
plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a
citizen of the forum State”); Bor. of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45
F.3d 780, 785 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating “[Section] 1441(b)
diversity cases have an additional obstacle to removal: a
resident defendant is barred from removing to federal court”).
The removal of this action is barred, as at least one defendant
is a citizen — indeed, both defendants are citizens — of the
state in which this action was brought, i.e., New Jersey.1
THE COURT will therefore remand the action to state court.
The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: April 22, 2014
1
Subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331 —
although not properly asserted by the defendants in support of
removal — is also lacking. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co.,
Nat’l Ass’n v. Poczobut, No. 13–3303, 2013 WL 4012561, at *2
(D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2013) (remanding foreclosure action for, inter
alia, lack of Section 1331 jurisdiction because (1) plaintiff
bank asserted no federal claims, and (2) an adjudication that
would involve either federal issues raised outside of the
complaint or federal defenses does not give rise to jurisdiction);
see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60-61 (2009)
(stating “it would undermine the clarity and simplicity of . . .
[the well-pleaded complaint] rule if federal courts were obliged
to consider the contents not only of the complaint but also of
responsive pleadings”).
2
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?