Opinion
Case No. 2:04-CV-01158 PGC.
March 7, 2005
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO STATE COURT
Plaintiff Zion's First National Bank (Zion's Bank) moves the court to remand this matter to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court agrees that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this dispute between a debtor and creditor. Accordingly, Zion's Bank's motion to remand these proceedings to state court is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In 1993, Mr. Busico obtained a bank card with a credit limit of $7,500 from Zion's Bank. Over the next ten years, Mr. Busico used the bank card and accrued a debt of $8,070.91 plus interest by May 7, 2003. When Mr. Busico refused to pay his debt, Zion's Bank filed a complaint in state court. On August 20, 2004, the state court entered judgment against Mr. Busico in the amount of $9,694.38. After Mr. Busico sent a "bond" to the state court purporting to pay the judgment, Zion's Bank filed and the state court issued an Order for Supplemental Proceedings. According to counsel for Zion's Bank, Mr. Busico appeared at the courthouse on November 29, 2004, the day of the hearing on the supplemental order, however, he did not appear for the hearing before the judge. On December 17, 2004, Mr. Busico filed a Notice of Removal of both this action and a similar action in which CitiBank is the plaintiff.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As provided for by statute, "[A]ny 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." Thus, an action can only be removed to federal district court if it could have originated in federal court. Moreover, removal statutes are to be strictly construed and all doubts are to be resolved against removal.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2005).
Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1983).
DISCUSSION
Zion's Bank argues that these proceedings should be remanded to state court because (1) this court does not have original jurisdiction, and (2) the motion to remove was untimely. Mr. Busico contends that the court is not deprived of jurisdiction over this case because the state court's judgment deprives him of his Constitutional rights and because there are exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Mr. Busico's arguments are not persuasive. Zion's Bank requests an order reimbursing it for attorney's fees and costs incurred in preparing its motion.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court established that federal subject matter jurisdiction usually exists only when a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint includes claims based on federal law. Zion's Bank's complaint has just one cause of action, in which it asks the court for judgment on Mr. Busico's debt. Although Mr. Busico claims that the judgment by the state court and Zion's Bank's efforts to collect on his debt deprive him of money and property, Mr. Busico cannot establish a federal cause of action by pleading defenses that may have some basis in constitutional law. Since Zion's Bank did not include a federal cause of action in their complaint, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987).
Briesch v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1320 (D. Utah 1999).
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Mr. Busico contends that exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine allow federal jurisdiction to attach when the state court judgment was procured through fraud, deception, accident, or mistake. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is a principle of jurisdiction that precludes the lower federal courts from applying appellate review to state court decisions. Mr. Busico is correct that there are certain exceptions, and he has offered several examples. For instance, a federal court may have jurisdiction if a party had no reasonable opportunity to raise a federal claim in a state proceeding, or when a specific federal statute specifically authorizes review. The Seventh Circuit explained, "Litigants who feel a state proceeding has violated their constitutional rights must appeal that decision through their state court and thence to the Supreme Court. . . ." Mr. Busico cannot appeal the decision of the state court in federal district court. A federal district court has no jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions, including cases alleging that the state court's action was unconstitutional. Mr. Busico has not attempted to appeal the judgment in state court. Instead, Mr. Busico has removed this action to federal court so the state court's decision may be reviewed by this court. Even if an exception to Rooker-Feldman can be used to remove a state action to federal court, no such exception applies in this case. Therefore, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Epps v. Creditnet, Inc., 320 F.3d 756, 759 (7th Cir. 2002).
Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1983).
See 18 U.S.C. § 1964.
Young v. Murphy, 90 F.3d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1996).
Id.
Procedure for Removal
Because the court find that it lacks original jurisdiction in this case, the issue of whether Mr. Busico followed the proper procedure for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 is moot and need not be considered.
Fees and Costs
An order remanding a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may require the payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. Zion's Bank has requested an award of its fees and costs because Mr. Busico had no legal or factual basis to remove the case from state court, and because Mr. Busico's removal appears to be a pattern to continue delay and avoid payment. While this is a close call, the court DENIES fees and costs, but warns Mr. Busico that if similar motions are brought without sound bases, the outcome will not be as favorable.
CONCLUSION
In its complaint, Zion's Bank included just one cause of action against Mr. Busico for the collection of a debt, a claim based upon state law. No federal question is presented and this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine presented by Mr. Busico apply to this case. Accordingly, Zion's Bank's motion to remand these proceedings to the state court is GRANTED, but no fees or costs are awarded. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case.