Wang v. Coast 2 Coast Temp Housing

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-10393
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BING WANG, Case No. 25-10393 Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. United States District Judge COAST 2 COAST TEMP HOUSING, SAM SESI,

Defendants, and SAM SESI, Third Party Plaintiff, v. DANA MCALLISTER, GLOBAL PROPERTY SPECIALISTS LLC, PRUDENTIAL REALTY LLC, FEI QIN, FRASIER QIN, YUAN HUANG, Third-Party Defendants, and SAM SESI, Counter-Plaintiff v. BING WANG,

Counter-Defendant. ___________________________ / OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Third-Party Defendant Dana McAllister removed this action to federal court from state district court on February 10, 2025. (ECF No. 1). As explained below, a third-party defendant is not permitted to remove a matter to federal court, and thus, this matter must be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. II. ANALYSIS

The statute authorizing removal from state court to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), states that cases may be removed by “the defendant or the defendants.” The term “defendant” in the removal statute has been narrowly

construed to refer only to defendants in the traditional sense, meaning parties against whom the plaintiff asserts claims. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 104-08 (1941). Likewise, counterclaim or third-party defendants,

including cross-defendants, are not “defendants” who may remove an action to federal court. See id. (holding that the removal statute must be narrowly interpreted to authorize removal only by traditional defendants); Progressive

West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming “Shamrock’s longstanding rule that a plaintiff/cross-defendant cannot remove an action to federal court); In Re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 849,

853 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[§ 1441 does] not provide a basis for removal by a third- party defendant.”); Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019) (“§ 1441(a) does not permit removal by any counterclaim defendant”);

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 441 (2019) (“§ 1441(a) does not permit removal by any counterclaim defendant.”). As a third-party defendant, McAllister is not permitted to remove this matter to federal court.

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[A] finding that removal was improper deprives th[e] court of subject matter

jurisdiction and obliges a remand under the terms of § 1441(c).” Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991) (citing

Brewer v. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 508 F. Supp. 72, 74 (S.D. Ohio 1980)). Here, because McAllister, as a third-party defendant, is not permitted to remove this matter to federal court, the removal was improper. Accordingly, the court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction and is obligated to remand this matter to state district court. III. CONCLUSION

Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the court REMANDS this case to state court. SO ORDERED.

Date: February 18, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge