Boldrini v. Luzerne Cnty.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:21-CV-02005 |
| Parties | ANTONELLO BOLDRINI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUZERNE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are two motions to remand filed by Defendants 1900 Capital Trust II, by U.S. Bank Trust National Association (“Capital Trust”) and Luzerne County (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 4; Doc. 14). Additionally, Plaintiffs Antonello Boldrini and Daniele A Boldrini (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring a motion for removal, two motions for extension of time, and a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 17; Doc. 19; Doc. 57; Doc 58). Defendant Capital Trust filed its motion to remand on November 30, 2021; and Defendant Luzerne County filed its motion to remand on December 9, 2021. (Doc. 4; Doc. 14). Defendants request that the current matter be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County due to Plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently allege federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. (Doc. 5, at 3-4; Doc. 16, at 3). Additionally, Defendant Capital Trust avers that removal by Plaintiffs is improper as it violates a previous Order from the Court enjoining Antonello Boldrini from filing an action without leave of Court.[1] (Doc. 5, at 4). For the following reasons, it is recommended that Defendants' motions to remand (Doc. 4; Doc. 14) be granted, Plaintiffs' motion for removal (Doc. 19) be denied, and Plaintiffs' motions for extension of time and motion for reconsideration be struck as moot (Doc. 17; Doc. 57; Doc. 58).
On November 26, 2021, Plaintiffs removed “[t]wo Luzerne County cases” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443.[2] (Doc. 1, at 2). Plaintiffs claim that the county actions are properly removed because Defendants violated Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process rights, and Fourth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1, at 2). Plaintiffs also assert a conspiracy claim and racketeering claim against Defendants. (Doc. 1, at 2-3).
On November 30, 2021, Defendant Capital Trust filed a motion to remand to state court stating that the Court lacked jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs' failure to allege a federal question or that the parties are diverse. (Doc. 5, at 3-4). Additionally, Defendant Capital Trust alleges that Plaintiffs are in violation of a previous Court Order enjoining Antonello Boldrini from filing any action regarding the set of facts alleged without leave of Court. (Doc. 5, at 4). On December 9, 2021, Defendant Luzerne County filed a motion to remand also alleging that Plaintiffs have failed to present a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 16, at 3). Defendants request that the matter be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. (Doc. 5, at 3; Doc. 16, at 3).
On December 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to file a brief in support of their notice of removal.[3] (Doc. 17). On December 20, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for removal to federal court and to dismiss the underlying state court actions. (Doc. 19). In their motion, Plaintiffs seek leave of court to file the current action and detail the facts and procedural history of Antonello Boldrini's previous case held before Judge Mariani. (Doc. 24, at 2, 3-11). On January 5, 2022, Defendants filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending the Court's decision on the previously filed motions to remand. (Doc. 26, at 3-4). On January 10, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending adjudication of Defendants' respective motions to remand. (Doc. 36, at 1). On January 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration regarding Defendants' motion to stay and filed a motion for extension of time for discovery and to file an amended complaint the following day. (Doc. 57; Doc. 58).
The removal of cases from state courts to federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1455. Under § 1441(a), a defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs do not state how they are seeking a notice of removal, as they simply state that they are seeking removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443. (Doc. 1). As Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court will assess whether they have alleged jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or a federal question.
Section 1446 of the removal statute further sets forth the procedures for removal, explaining that a defendant seeking removal of an action must file a petition for removal with the district court that contains “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants” in the state court action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). In addition, a notice of removal “shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b). After a case has been removed, a plaintiff may move to remand the action back to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for “(1) lack of district court subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in the removal procedure.” Ramos v. Quien, 631 F.Supp.2d 601, 607 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting PAS v. Travelers Ins. Co., 7 F.3d 349, 352 (3d Cir.1993)). However, a “motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have recognized that removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal with all doubts resolved in favor of remand. See, e.g., Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990)). A district court “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, ” between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “If the citizenship of the parties is not disclosed in the complaint, the case is not removable unless the defendant can affirmatively plead and later prove the existence of diversity. ” Balilaj v. Marshalls, Inc., No. CIV.A. 03-5908, 2004 WL 437448, at *2-4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2004) (citing 16 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 107.14 (3d ed. 2002)); see also Rosenfield v. Forest City Enterprises, L.P., 300 F.Supp.3d 674, 674-75 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (“[W]here, as here, it is not apparent from the face of the complaint that a case is removable, a defendant may remove within thirty days of receipt of an amended complaint, motion, order, or ‘other paper' from which it may first be ascertained that the case is removable.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)3)). Moreover, “a defendant utilizing diversity for removal must show that diversity existed not only upon removal but also at the time of commencement of the action in state court.” Fiorentino v. Huntingside Associates, 679 F.Supp. 3, 5 (E.D. Pa. 1987) (citing Kerstetter v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 496 F.Supp. 1305, 1307 (E.D. Pa. 1980)); Ellerbee v. Union Zinc, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 162, 164 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Additionally, a district court “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Third Circuit has repeatedly held that “the party asserting federal jurisdiction in a removal case bears the burden of showing, at all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly before the federal court.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Samuel-Bassett, 357 F.3d at 396.
In moving to remand, Defendants submit that Plaintiffs have failed to allege either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 5, at 3-4; Doc. 16, at 3). In their briefs in opposition, Plaintiffs fail to discuss any form of jurisdiction that would permit the Court to hear their claims. (Doc. 9; Doc. 18). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction and it is recommended that this matter be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County.
First, Plaintiffs have not alleged diversity jurisdiction in this matter. As discussed supra, “[i]f the grounds [for removal] are premised on diversity, the notice [of removal] must allege diversity at the time of the commencement of the action and at the time of the notice filing.” Moser v. Bostitch Div. of Textron, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 917, 918-19 (W.D. Pa. 1985). Here, Plaintiffs' notice of removal does not allege where the Defendants are domiciled and states that Plaintiffs are “[r]esidents” of “81 Frothingham Street Pittston PA.” (Doc. 1, at 1).
Based on these allegations, the Court finds that the notice of removal does not properly allege diversity of citizenship between the parties, as the Notice of Removal contains no averments of the locations of “citizenship” of the individual parties, nor does it attempt to allege where the Defendants are...
To continue reading
Request your trial