Opinion
Civil File No. 00-1139 (MJD/JGL).
January 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand; (2) Defendants' Motion for Class Decertification; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and denies as moot Defendants' motions.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the underlying suit in Washington County District Court against Defendants, alleging ten counts under state law in connection with the manufacture and sale of defective guns. Plaintiff also alleges one count arising under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312, a federal statute requiring minimum standards for consumer product warranties. On May 5, 2000, Defendants removed this action to federal court on the basis of federal question and diversity of citizenship. Thereafter, Plaintiffs moved to remand.
DISCUSSION
Generally, cases are removable from state to federal court when federal question or diversity of citizenship exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. With respect to diversity of citizenship, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs' argument that the complaint does not and cannot allege costs exceeding $75,000 per Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, and must determine whether it may exercise jurisdiction based on a federal question.
In the complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged one count under the Magnuson-Moss Act. As courts have noted, however, Congress specified "strict jurisdictional requirements" for the Magnuson-Moss Act "in an attempt to channel most of the Act's litigation into State courts." Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F. Supp. 1513, 1521 (D.D.C. 1984); see also Stuessy v. Microsoft Corp., 837 F. Supp. 690, 691 (E.D. Penn. 1993); Barr v. Gen. Motors Corp., 80 F.R.D. 136, 138-39 (S.D.Ohio 1978). One jurisdictional provision of the Magnuson-Moss Act requires that the number of plaintiffs actually named in the complaint equal or exceed one hundred in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a Magnuson-Moss Act claim. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(C). The complaint in this case does not meet this requirement, as only three Plaintiffs are named. That Plaintiffs have identified over 100 potential class members is irrelevant to this analysis, as the jurisdictional language of the Magnuson-Moss Act is unequivocal. Id.; see also Barr, 80 F.R.D. at 138-39. Accordingly, this count could not have been brought originally in federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, and Defendants' motion to amend defects in their allegations of jurisdiction is moot.
Finally, Plaintiffs seek "just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal," as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court requires an affidavit itemizing such costs and expenses before it will entertain that request.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Clerk Doc. Nos. 42 46) is GRANTED;
2. Defendants' Motion to Amend Notice of Removal (Clerk Doc. No. 49) is DENIED AS MOOT;
3. This matter is REMANDED to Washington County District Court, Tenth Judicial District;
4. Defendants' Motion for Class Decertification (Clerk Doc. No. 30) is DENIED AS MOOT; and
5. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Clerk Doc. Nos. 29 30) is DENIED AS MOOT.