Filed: May 13, 2014
Latest Update: May 13, 2014
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. The defendant undertakes to remove — in one notice (Doc. 1) of removal — two actions. 1 The defendant's attempt is defective: The removing party must institute a separate case in federal court for each state court case that is removed. Of course, a removing party may note that a newly removed matter is related to a previously filed action, but that does not excuse the obligation to initiate a new action. Here, [the defendant] seeks removal of three
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. The defendant undertakes to remove — in one notice (Doc. 1) of removal — two actions. 1 The defendant's attempt is defective: The removing party must institute a separate case in federal court for each state court case that is removed. Of course, a removing party may note that a newly removed matter is related to a previously filed action, but that does not excuse the obligation to initiate a new action. Here, [the defendant] seeks removal of three c..
More
ORDER
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.
The defendant undertakes to remove — in one notice (Doc. 1) of removal — two actions.1 The defendant's attempt is defective:
The removing party must institute a separate case in federal court for each state court case that is removed. Of course, a removing party may note that a newly removed matter is related to a previously filed action, but that does not excuse the obligation to initiate a new action. Here, [the defendant] seeks removal of three cases pending in state court into a single federal action. This procedure is improper. Accordingly, the Court considers the first case mentioned in [the defendant's] Notice of Removal as the state case he seeks to remove into the above-captioned federal action. The other two cases [the defendant] mentions in his Notices of Removal are not properly before this Court and are hereby REMANDED for that reason alone.
Mlotek v. Mlotek, 10-CV-432, 2011 WL 441526 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2011) (O'Malley) (citation omitted); accord Plaintiff 67,634-69,607 v. Trans Union LLC, 2010 WL 4284956 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2010) (Jack, J.) ("Without proof of an effective consolidation, Defendant was required to file individual notices of removal for each civil action that defendant desired to remove . . . ."); Larson v. United Natural Foods W., Inc., 2010 WL 1492891 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2010) (Campbell, J.) ("When the notice of removal was filed in Case 1, no consolidation [of Case 1 and Case 2] had occurred. The notice, therefore, was effective only in Case 1.").
The parties agree that jurisdiction exists over the first action (Case No. 14-CA 2562) identified in the defendant's notice of removal. Thus, the second action (Case No. 14-CA-2565) identified in the notice of removal is REMANDED.2 The clerk is directed, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to mail a certified copy of this order to the clerk of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The defendant's motion (Doc. 6) to dismiss (which "speak[s] about both complaints at the same time") and the plaintiff's motion (Doc. 8) to remand are DENIED AS MOOT.
ORDERED.
