Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Plaintiff's motion to remand an action removed from state court. The court held that vague references to constitutional violations did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because the petition primarily sought the return of property and equitable relief. The court concluded that Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The district court lacked federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction because the action did not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- A vague, ambiguous, or passing reference to federal law is insufficient to support removal based on federal-question jurisdiction.
- The case had to be remanded because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had federal-question jurisdiction over the removed state-court action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Whether vague or passing references to constitutional violations in a state-court petition or attachment were sufficient to support removal.
- Whether the action should be remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (3)
- In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Kellum v. Glister-Mary Lee Corp. Grp. Health Benefit Plan, 115 F.4th 849, 852-53 (8th Cir. 2024)(followed)
- Henderson v. Jordan, No. 4:09-CV-937-RWS, 2009 WL 2168692, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2009)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…