Opinion
No. 4:99CV211-B-B
May 22, 2000
Memorandum Opinion
This cause comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion to remand. The court has duly considered the parties' memoranda and is ready to rule.
This cause was removed on the ground of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The notice of removal alleges that the claims in the instant cause are related to Cause No. 4:99CV168-B-B brought in this court by Troy D. Brown, the defendant herein, on the ground of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A. Lee Abraham, the plaintiff herein, is one of the defendants in that action.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides in part:
in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
(Emphasis added). The case cited by the defendant is inapposite. Guzzino v. Felterman, 191 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 1999) (remand of state law claims upon the dismissal of the federal claims in consolidated actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Courts have held that "[t]he supplemental-jurisdiction statute is not a source of original subject-matter jurisdiction." Ahearn v. Charter Township of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir. 1996), cited in George v Borden Chems. Plastics Operating Ltd., 960 F. Supp. 92, 95 (M.D.La. 1997). See 14B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3722 at 384-85 (3d ed. 1998). It is undisputed that the instant action does not invoke independent jurisdiction based on either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. Therefore, the court finds that this cause is not removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ("any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed. . . .").
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the remand order, except for the cases in which federal claims remained pending, contrary to the district court's understanding. Guzzino v. Felterman, 191 F.3d 588, 596 (5th Cir. 1999).
In Guzzino numerous related cases were consolidated after each case had been removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 191 F.3d at 593. The district court remanded the remaining state law claims in the interest of judicial economy, noting, inter alia, that approximately seventy related cases were pending in state court. Id. at 595.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the motion to remand is well taken and that this cause must be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). An order will issue accordingly.