Lucky U, LLC v. S&F Investments LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Plaintiff LUCKY U, LLC Civil No. 3:21cv931 (JBA) v . , August 18, 2021 S&F INVESTMENTS, LLC, A&V PETROLEUM, LLC and FADDIe QfeUnMdaBnAtRsGI RULING GR. A NTING S&F INVESTMENTS LLC’S MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff Lucky U, LLC (“Lucky U”) brought an action against Defendants for breach of contract, failure of contract, an illusory contract, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligence, accounting, debt, and fraud. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-96.) PIdla.intiff also requests a declaratory judgment and recission/reformation of an agreement. ( ¶¶ 13-22; 58-65.) In addition, Lucky U removed a summary process eviction action (Case No. DBD-CV21-6040068-S) brought by S&F Investments, LLC (“S&F”) from the Superior Court of Connecticut. (Notice of Removal [Doc. # 7].) S&F now moves to remand the summary process actiIo.n . (MoBt.a tcok Rgeromuanndd [Doc. # 9] at 1.) Lucky U is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Connecticut with two members: a citizen of India residing in Connecticut and a citizen of the United States residing in Connecticut. (Notice Pursuant to Re: Standing Order on Removed Cases [Doc. # 20] ¶ 3.) Plaintiff Lucky U filed a federal diversity action on July 7, 2021. (Compl. at 1.) Thereafter, Lucky U, the defendant in a Connecticut summary process action brought by S&F, removed the state eviction action to federal court under the same case docket number as its diversity action. (Notice of Removal [Doc. # 7] at 1-5.) In that state court action, S&F sought Id. or equitable relief. ( ) Defendant S&F argues that the case cannot be removed as no money damages are claimed. (Mot. to Remand [Doc. # 9] at 2.) Lucky U counters that the Court should not remand the action because the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are satisfied and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the summary process action. (Obj. to [1] Mot. to Remand [Doc. # 15] at 2-3.) II. Discussion “Where . . . jurisdiction is asserted by a defendant in a removal pUetnititioedn ,F ito ofodl l&ow Cso mthmat. tWheo rdkeefresn Udnainotn h va. sC ethnete bruMradrekn P orfo epsst. aMbelirsihdienng S tqhuaatr ree,moval is proper.” 30 F.3d 298 , 301 (2d Cir. 1994). A case may be removed to a federal court only if it could have been broughSte tehere initially; in other words, the case must fall under the court’s original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). Section 1441 allows a case to be reSmeeo Gviebdb otnos fve.d Berriaslt oclo-Muryte rbs aSsqeudi bobn C foe.deral question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. , 919 F.3d 699, 704 (2d Cir. 2019). “But where, as here, the only basis for federal subject-matter jurisdSicetei oidn. is diversitEyn ocfo mcitpiazessn sInhsip. Cuon. dve. rS t2o8n eU .MS.aCn. §si o1n3 3R2e,s ‘tt.h Ien cfo.rum defendant rule applies.’” (quoting , 902 F.3d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 2018)). That rule provides that an action “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defseened aalnsots U i.sS .a B caintikz,e Nn aotf' l tAhses 'Snt aatse Tirn. wfohr iBche asru Scthe rancst iAonss eist bBraocukgedh tS.”e c2. 8I TUr..S 2.C0.0 §6 -1A4C411, (Abs)s(e2t-)B; acked Certificates, Series 2006-AC1 v. Profeta , No. 3:18-CV1710 (CSH), 2019 WL 2185725 , at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 26, 2019) (“[I]f any defendant is a citizen of Connecticut, the action may not be removed to the District of Connecticut.”). [1] Here, Lucky U acknowledges that it is a citizen of Connecticut in its Notice Pursuant to the District of Connecticut’s Standing Order on Removed Cased [Doc. # 20]. A limited liability corpHoarnatdieolnsm taank evs. Btehdef ocridt izVeilnlashgeip A sosfo ci.t sL tdm. ePm’sbheiprs for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, , 213 F.3d 48 , 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000), and Lucky U is comprised of a member that is a “citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Connecticut,” (Notice Pursuant to Re: Standing Order on Removed Cases [Doc. # 20] ¶ 3). Because at least one of Lucky U’s constituent members is a resident of Connecticut, the state where the underlying eviction action was brought, Lucky U cannot remove the dispute to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Further, Lucky U’s argument that the Court should retain jurisdiction over this matter through supplemental jurisdiction is unavailing. According to Lucky U, S&F’s state court eviction action is sufficiently related to Lucky U’s federal diversity action to permit the Court to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . (Pl.’s Obj. to Mot. to Remand [Doc. # 15] at 3-4.) But the state eviction action is not removable based on diversity of citizenship aSnede sMucpCplelellmanedn tva.l Ljounrgishditicatnioon is not an “independent source of removal jurisdiction.” , 140 F. Supp. 2d 201, 203 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Almost every single authority to address [whether a case may be removed through supplemental jurisdiction] has concluded that the supplemental jurisdiction statute cannot be used in this manner”). Accordingly, as “an already-existing federal acInti oren Ecsatantneo ot f pTraobvaisde the mechanism for removal of a non-removable state-court action,” , 879 F. Supp. 464 (E.D. Pa. 1995), the Court cannot retain jurisdiction over the removed action. Based on the foregoing, Lucky U has not satisfied its burden of establishing that removal was proper. Accordingly, S&F’s mSo&tiFo nIn v[Desotcm. e#n9ts], LtoL Cr evm. Launcdk yt oU , sLtLatCe court is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to remand , Case No. DBD-CV-21-6040068-S, to the Judicial District of Danbury at Danbury. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 18th day of August 2021.