Michigan First Credit Union v. Andrew Pitts

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan remanded Andrew Pitts’ second notice of removal to the 36th Judicial District Court of Michigan. The court held that considering the second removal would constitute impermissible review of the prior remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), granted Pitts’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, and warned that further federal filings could result in sanctions.

Holdings

1. A district court may not entertain a second notice of removal filed by the same defendant when the second notice functionally seeks review or reconsideration of the court's prior remand order; 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars such review.
2. Federal defenses and counterclaims asserted by a removing defendant do not establish federal-question jurisdiction where the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint alleges only a state-law claim.
3. The court found the action frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court could entertain Pitts's second notice of removal after the same defendant had previously removed the action and the court had remanded it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether Pitts's asserted federal defenses and counterclaims could establish federal-question jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state-law complaint.
3. Whether the action was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and whether any appeal would be taken in good faith.

Disposition

remanded