Dorantes v. Copeland et al
| Vannessa L. Dorantes |
| Damien Copeland and Jaylyn Copeland |
| 3:2021cv00797 |
| June 11, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 26, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Hartford. (Oliver, T.) |
Filing 11
ORDER directing the Clerk to remand this case to state court because I do not have subject matter jurisdiction."A court may remand a removed case to state court sua sponte... if it finds its subject matter jurisdiction lacking." Battaglia v. Shore Parkway Owner LLC, 249 F. Supp. 3d 668, 670 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). In an action removed to federal court, the "Court has the duty to review a plaintiff's complaint at the earliest opportunity to determine whether there is in fact subject matter jurisdiction." Demers v. Target Corp., 2010 WL 2667438, at *1 (D. Conn. June 30, 2010).There are two ways that I might have subject matter jurisdiction over this case: (1) federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, or (2) diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. I have neither. To rely on federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claim must "aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. "Removal is proper" pursuant to federal question jurisdiction "only if the federal question appears plainly on the face of a 'well-pleaded complaint.'" Fax Telecommc'ns Inc. v. AT & T, 138 F.3d 479, 486 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). In this case, no federal question appears on the face of the state-court complaint. Indeed, the state-court complaint is a petition filed by the Connecticut State Department of Children and Families ("DCF") against Copeland and the mother of Copeland's child that claims those two individuals have neglected their child. See Petition, Doc. No. [1-1], at 4. That petition contains no claim possibly arising under federal law.To rely on diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity among the parties, which means that all plaintiffs and all defendants must be citizens of different states. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). "This means that if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, complete diversity does not exist, and diversity jurisdiction is lacking." Battaglia, 249 F. Supp. 3d at 670. In addition, to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Here, there is plainly not complete diversity among all plaintiffs and all defendants: The DCF and Copeland are both citizens of Connecticut. See Petition, Doc. No. [1-1], at 4 (listing DCF Commissioner's address in Hartford, Connecticut); see id. (listing Copeland's address in Hartford, Connecticut); see also Notice of Pro Se Appearance, Doc. No. #8 (Copeland listing his address in Hartford, Connecticut).For those reasons, I do not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. I thus dismiss this case without prejudice. The Clerk shall close this case and remand the action back to the Connecticut Superior Court.Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/22/2021. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Pending Motions by Damien Copeland (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Damien Copeland re #6 Standing Protective Order (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 8 Special Appearance Self Represented Party by Damien Copeland (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Re: Local Rule 83.1 Admission of Attorneys. The above captioned case has been received and filed in our court. Please see our Local Rule 83.1 regarding Admission of Attorneys that is available on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. You will not be added to the case, nor will we accept further filings until you have complied with Local Rule 83.1. If you have any questions about this procedure, please contact the Clerk's Office. Signed by Clerk on 06/11/2021.(Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/11/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/11/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 8/10/2021. Discovery due by 12/11/2021. Dispositive Motions due by 1/15/2022. Signed by Clerk on 06/11/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Damien Copeland. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 COUNTERCLAIM against Vannessa L. Dorantes, filed by Damien Copeland.(Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Damien Copeland from Superior Court, Hartford, case number H12CP21018864A., filed by Damien Copeland. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(Fazekas, J.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
