From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingris v. Mallouk Realty Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Nov 24, 2014
Civil Action No. 14-6946 (MAS) (DEA) (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2014)

Summary

remanding the complaint to the state court upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because the plaintiff could not properly remove the action

Summary of this case from Tejada v. McFadden

Opinion

Civil Action No. 14-6946 (MAS) (DEA)

11-24-2014

PETER INGRIS, Plaintiff, v. MALLOUK REALTY CORPORATION, et al., Defendant.


MEMORANDUM ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES

This matter comes before the Court on the application of Plaintiff Peter Ingris to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Application, ECF No. 1-2.) The Court will grant the application on the strength of Plaintiff's allegation of indigence but Plaintiff's removal of this action was improper and the Court will sua sponte remand this action back to state court.

On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal seeking to remove a New Jersey state court action, docket number SOM-L-1174-14. Plaintiff asserts that removal is proper based on Defendant Mallouk Realty Corporation's counterclaim and third party complaint asserted against third party defendant Amy Tsai pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446. The removal statutes cited by Plaintiff only allow removal by a "defendant." "[R]emoval statutes are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand." A.S. ex rel. Miller v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 769 F.3d 204, 208 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). And "plaintiffs cannot remove suits to federal court." Thomas v. Advance Hous., Inc., 475 F. App'x 405, 407 (3d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff offers no justification as to how he is a proper party to remove this action to this Court.

IT IS on this 24th day of November, 2014, ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Notice of Removal without prepayment of fees or security;

3. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey ; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.

/s/_________

MICHAEL A. SHIPP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Ingris v. Mallouk Realty Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Nov 24, 2014
Civil Action No. 14-6946 (MAS) (DEA) (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2014)

remanding the complaint to the state court upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because the plaintiff could not properly remove the action

Summary of this case from Tejada v. McFadden
Case details for

Ingris v. Mallouk Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:PETER INGRIS, Plaintiff, v. MALLOUK REALTY CORPORATION, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Nov 24, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 14-6946 (MAS) (DEA) (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2014)

Citing Cases

Tejada v. McFadden

See Conner v. Salzinger, 457 F.2d 1241, 1243 (3d Cir. 1972) (directing the district court to dismiss the…