Opinion
Case No. 2:03-CV-286TC.
August 13, 2003.
ORDER OF REMAND
Plaintiff Intermountain Research Recovery, Inc. ("Intermountain") filed a Complaint in the Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the "State Court") on February 27, 2003. Defendants Bryan Payne and Trisha Payne (collectively, the "Paynes") filed a notice of removal on March 24, 2003, but did not provide the basis for the court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). Further, nothing in the Complaint indicated that jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
On May 9, 2003, the court issued an Amended Order to show cause as to why the court should not remand the case to State Court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Paynes have neither responded to the court's Order to show cause nor to Intermountain's motion to remand, which Intermountain filed on April 14, 2003.
As an initial matter, the Paynes did not follow the procedural rules for removal required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a). Section 1446(a) provides that a notice of removal to federal court must "contain 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 such action." 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a). The Paynes' notice of removal states only that "Defendants give notice that they are removing the above-entered case to United States District Court, Central Division of Utah pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441." (Defs.' Notice of Removal.)
More importantly, nothing in Intermountain's Complaint or the Paynes' notice of removal indicates that the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) (permitting removal of civil actions to federal court where the federal court has original jurisdiction). First, the Complaint asserts that Intermountain is a Utah corporation and that the Paynes are residents of Utah. (Complaint ¶¶ 1 — 2; see also Abelhouzen Decl. ¶¶ 2 — 4.) Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 therefore does not exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a).
Second, a federal question is not apparent from the face of Intermountain's Complaint at the time of removal. See Jackson v. Phillip Morris. Inc., 46 F. Supp.2d 1217, 1221 (D. Utah 1998) (stating that "[i]t has long been the rule that the propriety of removal must be determined by looking at the record at the time the petition for removal is filed") (citing Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537 (1939)). The Complaint contains only state law causes of action — namely, for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, conversion, and violation of Utah's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, see Utah Code Annotated § 13-24-2(4). The Complaint does not rely on any federal statutes or the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In sum, it appears from the face of the Complaint that neither diversity of citizenship nor federal question jurisdiction exist in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a), 1331. The court therefore REMANDS the Plaintiffs' case to State Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), the clerk will mail a certified copy of this Order of remand to the clerk of the State Court. The clerk will also close the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.