CITY OF GREENSBURG v. MAYDAK

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 4 Motion to Remand to State Court, as explained therein. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 4/22/15. (mh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CITY OF GREENSBURG,
Plaintiff,
v

KEITH MAYDAK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) 2:15-cv-480
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

On April 10, 2015 Defendant Keith Maydak (“Maydak”), acting pro se, filed a Notice of
Removal of this action (ECF No. 1). The lawsuit had originally been filed by Plaintiff City of
Greensburg in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Maydak
asserts that removal jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On April
21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a MOTION FOR REMAND (ECF No. 4), with brief in support.
There are two fundamental requirements for removal jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship: (1) there must be complete diversity of citizenship of the parties; and (2) the amount
in controversy must exceed $75,000. The court has a duty to inquire, sua sponte, into its subject
matter jurisdiction whether removal has been challenged or not. See, e.g., Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006); Huber v. Taylor, 532 F.3d 237, 249 (3d Cir. 2008). In Brown
v. Jevic, 575 F.3d 322, 326 (3d Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals explained: “Removal statutes
are to be strictly construed, with all doubts to be resolved in favor of remand.” Further, the
burden is on the removing party to demonstrate that jurisdiction is proper in this court. Thus, a
party removing a case to federal court bears the burden of establishing the $75,000 jurisdictional

amount by a preponderance of the evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 1446; Schillaci v. WalMart, 2012 WL
4056758, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2012).
Upon review of the Notice of Removal and attachments, the Court concludes that
removal is not proper in this instance, and therefore, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over this case. It appears that Maydak is not a citizen of Pennsylvania, such that the Court will
assume that there is complete diversity of citizenship in this case. However, Maydak has failed
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The initial Complaint filed in the state court by the City of Greensburg is attached to the
Notice of Removal. The Complaint reflects that this action involves the demolition of a house
due to Maydak’s alleged failure to comply (in numerous respects) with the City’s Property
Maintenance Code ordinance. The City avers that the house is in a state of severe dilapidation
and constitutes a hazard, danger and nuisance.
The Civil Cover Sheet completed by the City of Greensburg states that the amount in
controversy is not less than $30,000. Maydak attempts to bootstrap the value of this case above
the federal jurisdictional limit by alleging: (1) that the cost of demolition “and replacement” of
the house would exceed $75,000; and (2) that the house is insured for an amount in excess of
$100,000 as replacement value. Neither argument is persuasive. As an initial matter, Maydak
has made only bald, conclusory statements of value which lack any factual or evidentiary
support. He has not submitted any evidence that the cost of demolition (or alternatively, the cost
to cure the alleged defects) would exceed $75,000. Moreover, the “replacement” cost of the
house is entirely irrelevant, because replacement is not an element of demolition damages sought
by the City of Greensburg. Maydak has not submitted any evidence that the fair market value of
the existing house exceeds $75,000. The City of Greensburg asserts that he purchased the

2

property in 2006 for only $750. Similarly, insurance coverage might become the subject of a
separate dispute between Maydak and his insurer at some time in the future, but such is not an
element of this lawsuit. Maydak has not met his burden to show that the amount of controversy
in this case exceeds $75,000.
Maydak also attempts to remove this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. He baldly
asserts (tracking the statutory text) that he is a person who is denied or cannot enforce in the state
court a right under any law providing for equal civil rights. However, Maydak has not met his
burden to show that removal is proper under this theory. As noted above, the underlying case
involves a property maintenance ordinance, not civil rights. In addition, Maydak has failed to
demonstrate why he cannot enforce his rights and achieve a remedy in the state court.
In summary, because removal was not proper under the facts and circumstances of this
matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.

AND NOW this 22nd day of April, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that the MOTION FOR REMAND (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED and this action is
hereby REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania,
forthwith. The clerk shall docket this case closed.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
Senior United States District Judge
cc:

Bernard T. McArdle, Esquire
Email: [e-mail]
KEITH MAYDAK
c/o 93 South Jackson 7480
Seattle, WA 98104
Via US Mail
3