Michael Coffield, et al. v. Village of Granville, et al.

S.D. Ohio

Michael Coffield, et al. v. Village of Granville, et al.

DecidedFebruary 27, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-00123

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Coffield, et al. v. Village of Granville, et al. (Michael Coffield, et al. v. Village of Granville, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Coffield, et al. v. Village of Granville, et al., (S.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Michael Coffield, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:26-cv-123 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Village of Granville, et al., Magistrate Judge Jolson Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This is a zoning case that was removed to this Court from the Court of Common Pleas in Licking County, Ohio. ECF No. 1. The parties now jointly move to remand the case back to state court. ECF No. 9. After meeting and conferring, the parties stipulate that “there was an objectively reasonable basis for the initial removal,” but they also acknowledge that Plaintiffs “assert[ ] no federal causes of action” because “Counts III and V/ are brought under the Ohio Constitution.” ECF No. 9-1. So, the parties agree that remand is proper. /d. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking removal “has the burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.” Tennial v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 17-6377, 2020 WL 2530872, at *1 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Any “doubts as to the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of

remand.” Nessel ex rel. Michigan v. AmeriGas Partners, LP., 954 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of the same state (Ohio), so there is not diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Compl., ECF No. 2. And the parties have stipulated that none of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants arise under federal law for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See ECF No. 9-1. Instead, the only claims in this case are state-law claims, and the Court is mindful that the parties support remand. See id. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to remand, ECF No. 9, and REMANDS this case to the Court of Common Pleas in Licking County, Ohio.

ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:26-cv-123 Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Michael Coffield, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:26-cv-123 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Village of Granville, et al., Magistrate Judge Jolson Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This is a zoning case that was removed to this Court from the Court of Common Pleas in Licking County, Ohio. ECF No. 1. The parties now jointly move to remand the case back to state court. ECF No. 9. After meeting and conferring, the parties stipulate that “there was an objectively reasonable basis for the initial removal,” but they also acknowledge that Plaintiffs “assert[ ] no federal causes of action” because “Counts III and V/ are brought under the Ohio Constitution.” ECF No. 9-1. So, the parties agree that remand is proper. /d. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking removal “has the burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.” Tennial v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 17-6377, 2020 WL 2530872, at *1 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Any “doubts as to the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of

remand.” Nessel ex rel. Michigan v. AmeriGas Partners, LP., 954 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of the same state (Ohio), so there is not diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Compl., ECF No. 2. And the parties have stipulated that none of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants arise under federal law for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See ECF No. 9-1. Instead, the only claims in this case are state-law claims, and the Court is mindful that the parties support remand. See id. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to remand, ECF No. 9, and REMANDS this case to the Court of Common Pleas in Licking County, Ohio.

ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:26-cv-123 Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Coffield, et al. v. Village of Granville, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-coffield-et-al-v-village-of-granville-et-al-ohsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack