Hasley v. Farmer et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE: The Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, andCANCELS the Scheduling Conference currently set for Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. (certified copy of order and docket sheet to Circuit Clerk) Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/13/12. (jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
LAWRENCE E. HASLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV75
(Judge Keeley)

CHARLES DAVID FARMER and
ROUSTER WIRE ROPE AND RIGGING,
INC., a West Virginia corporation,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE
This matter is before the Court on a Notice of Removal from
the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court sua sponte FINDS that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action and REMANDS this
case to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia.
I.
On November 18, 2011, the plaintiff, Lawrence E. Hasley
(“Hasley”),

a

police

officer

for

the

Morgantown

City

Police

Department acting in his individual capacity, filed a complaint
against the defendants, Charles David Farmer (“Farmer”) and Rouster
Wire Rope and Rigging, Inc. (“Rouster”), in the Circuit Court of
Monongalia County, West Virginia. The complaint arises from a
November 27, 2009 motor vehicle accident in which Farmer, who was
operating a vehicle owned by Rouster, allegedly struck and injured
the plaintiff while he was conducting traffic. Critically, the

HASLEY

v. FARMER, ET AL.

1:12CV75

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE
complaint seeks damages sounding in state tort law and contains no
reference to federal law.
Rouster accepted service of the complaint on March 15, 2012,
and Farmer accepted service on April 4, 2012. Over a month later,
on May 7, 2012, Farmer filed a Notice of Removal with this Court,
as well as an Answer and Counterclaim which levies various federal
constitutional and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Hasley. The
defendants rely upon this counterclaim to invoke this Court’s
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing
that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because “[t]he
Counterclaim alleges violations of the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Dkt. No. 3 at 2).*
II.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Any state civil action which
satisfies this requirement “may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is

*

The Notice does not present federal diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as an alternative jurisdictional
ground, and all parties to this case appear to be West Virginia
residents. (Dkt. No. 6 at 3).
2

HASLEY

v. FARMER, ET AL.

1:12CV75

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking removal bears the
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, Mulcahey v. Columbia
Organic Chemicals Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994), and
all doubts about the propriety of removal should be resolved in
favor of retaining state jurisdiction. Hartley v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Cir. 1999).
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction
exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff’s

properly

pleaded

complaint.”

Caterpillar

Inc.

v.

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Accordingly, federal district
courts have jurisdiction over “‘only those cases in which a
well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates
the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief
necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of
federal law.’” Interstate Petroleum Corp. v. Morgan, 249 F.3d 215,
219 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27 (1983)).
III.
A district court has an independent obligation to ensure that
federal jurisdiction is proper and, if there is a question as to
whether

such

jurisdiction

exists,

must

“raise

lack

of

subject-matter jurisdiction on its own motion.” Ins. Corp. of
3

HASLEY

v. FARMER, ET AL.

1:12CV75

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE
Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694,
702 (1982); see also Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519
F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[B]ecause the lack of subject
matter jurisdiction may be noticed by the district court sua sponte
or by any party . . . the court may enter a remand order sua
sponte.” (citations omitted)).
Here, the sole basis for removal is that Farmer’s counterclaim
“alleges violations of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.” (Dkt. No. 3 at 2). It is a well-established rule of law,
however, that “a counterclaim – which appears as part of the
defendant’s answer, not as a part of the plaintiff’s complaint –
cannot serve as a basis of ‘arising under jurisdiction.’” Holmes
Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826,
831 (2002) (citations omitted); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank,
556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot . . . rest
upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”). As no federal
question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint, see Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this action and must remand this
case to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
4

HASLEY

v. FARMER, ET AL.

1:12CV75

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE
IV.
For the reasons discussed, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this
case to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, and
CANCELS the Scheduling Conference currently set for Tuesday, June
19, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record and send a certified copy to the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia.
DATED: June 13, 2012

/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5