From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Durham v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
May 21, 2020
Civil Action No. 19-16326 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. May. 21, 2020)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 19-16326 (MAS) (LHG)

05-21-2020

MILTON DURHAM Plaintiff, v. BRUCE DAVIS, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Bruce Davis' filing of a Notice of Removal of Plaintiff Milton Durham's civil rights complaint, which was initially filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) A review of the Superior Court's docket and filings reveal that Mr. Davis is not a named defendant in the underlying state court proceeding. See generally Milton Durham v. Charles Warren, No. MER-L-874-19 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. filed May 2, 2019). The Superior Court's docket also confirms that the state court did not recognize Mr. Davis' removal to federal court as valid and the proceedings have continued in state court. See id. On January 27, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Mr. Davis to respond, within 10 days, to provide a status update on the matter. (Order, Jan. 27, 2020, ECF No. 2.) Mr. Davis did not file a response. On April 3, 2020, this Court again issued an order directing Mr. Davis to show cause, within 14 days, why this matter should not be dismissed as having been invalidly removed. (Order, Apr. 3, 2020, ECF No. 3.) Mr. Davis again did not respond.

The federal removal statute provides that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, 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 pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). Further, "only a named defendant may remove an action to federal court" under § 1441(a). Ottaviance v. AVS Properties, LLC, No. 18-16429, 2019 WL 3183642, at *3 (D.N.J. July 15, 2019) (citing In re Notice of Removal Filed by William Einhorn, 481 F. Supp. 2d 345, 347-48 (D.N.J. 2007)).

Accordingly, given Mr. Davis' failure to respond to this Court's prior orders, as well as the relevant statutes and case law which indicate that an individual who is not a named defendant may not remove a matter to federal court, and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this 21ST day of May, 2020,

ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to New Jersey state court;

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Order upon Plaintiff's counsel in state court, Mr. Michael Poreda, Esq., at 69 Grove Street, Somerville, NJ 08876; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter as CLOSED.

/s/ _________

MICHAEL A. SHIPP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Durham v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
May 21, 2020
Civil Action No. 19-16326 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. May. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Durham v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:MILTON DURHAM Plaintiff, v. BRUCE DAVIS, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: May 21, 2020

Citations

Civil Action No. 19-16326 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. May. 21, 2020)