Annette Lois Washington, Basil Clifton Washington v. State of Connecticut, et al.

Summary

The court held that the Washingtons did not properly remove several Connecticut foreclosure and summary process actions because they filed a notice of removal within an existing civil action, failed to pay the required fees, and improperly combined multiple cases and parties. In the alternative, the court concluded that removal would have been untimely and improper because the underlying state-court pleadings did not present federal questions. The court directed the Clerk to send the order to the relevant Connecticut state courts.

Holdings

1. The Washingtons' filing did not effect removal because a notice of removal must initiate the removal of a particular state-court action in a properly opened federal matter; a state-court defendant may not use an existing civil action to combine multiple state cases or add numerous parties not present in those cases.
2. The purported removals were untimely because the notices were filed more than thirty days after service of the relevant state-court pleadings or summonses.
3. Federal-question removal was unavailable because the underlying state-court complaints were foreclosure and summary process pleadings, and the federal questions identified by the Washingtons arose from their own federal complaint rather than from the face of the state plaintiffs' properly pleaded complaints.
4. The Washingtons could not remove the state actions based solely on diversity jurisdiction because they were citizens of Connecticut and therefore were barred by the forum-defendant rule.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Washingtons' filing in an already-open federal civil action properly removed the identified state-court foreclosure, summary process, and appellate matters.
2. Whether the purported removals were untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
3. Whether federal-question jurisdiction existed where the underlying state complaints involved foreclosure and summary process and the asserted federal questions arose from the Washingtons' own federal complaint.
4. Whether the Washingtons could remove the state actions as Connecticut citizens based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Disposition

remanded