Credit Service of Logan v. Scott et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on 2/23/2017. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2017 FEB 23 AM 10:02
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CREDIT SERVICE OF LOGAN,
REED SCOTT and KRISTIE SCOTT,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
Case No. 1 :17-cv-00002-BSJ
District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
On Febrnary 2, 2017, Plaintiff Credit Service of Logan filed a Motion to Remand Case to
State Court and Supporting Memorandum ("Motion to Remand"). 1 Defendants Reed Scott and
Kristie Scott have not opposed the Motion to Remand.2 Having considered the Plaintiff's brief,
the evidence presented, and the relevant law, the court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Remand.
First, the notice for removal was untimely filed. According to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(b)(l),
"the notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the
receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading." The
state court found that Defendants were properly served on May 12, 2016. 3 Defendant Mr. Scott
filed the notice of removal on January 4, 2017 4 after the state court had issued its Memorandum
Motion to Remand to State Court and Supporting Mem., filed Febniary 2, 2017 (CM/ECF No. 7)
[hereinafter Motion to Remand].
According to local rule DUCivR 7-l(b)(3)(B), memoranda in opposition to "any motion that is not a
motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), 12(c) and 56 must be filed within (14) days after service of the motion
or within such time as allowed by the court." Plaintiff has filed this memorandum pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1447(c).
Defendants have not filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Remand within the 14-day time period.
Motion to Remand, ex. "C" Memorandum Decision December 1, 2016, at 7-10.
Notice of Removal from 1st District, Box Elder County, case number 169100298, filed January 4, 2017
(CM/ECF No. 1) [hereinafter Notice of Removal].
Decision. 5 This filling exceeds the 30-day window and thus the notice for removal was untimely
Second, there are no grounds to establish jurisdiction for removal to the district court.
The court may hear this case under federal questionjurisdiction6 or diversity jurisdiction. 7 There
are no federal questions presented before the court; the state complaint claims that Defendants
owe money to the Plaintiff for unpaid and past due goods and/or services. 8 In Mr. Scott's Petition
for Removal he claims violations of due process and equal protection; these claims have already
been addressed by the state court in its Memorandum Decision filed December 1, 2016. 9 The
district court has no authority to review the state court's decision. 10 With regards to diversity
jurisdiction, the parties are not completely diverse nor does the amount in controversy exceed
$75,000. 11 Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction over this case.
For the reasons analyzed above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
DATED this~ day of ~-
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?