J. KAZ, INC. v. BROWN, No. 2:2010cv00382 - Document 11 (W.D. Pa. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand to State Court; Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, forthwith. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 5/19/10. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J. KAZ, INC. v. BROWN Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA J. KAZ, INC., t/d/b/a CRAFTMATIC, and CRAFTMATIC of PITTSBURGH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY BROWN, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-0382 MEMORANDUM ;q Gary L. Lancaster, Chief Judge. Malj, This is an action alleging abuse of process. J. Kaz, Inc., ("Craftmatic") t/d/b/a Craftmatic and Craftmatic of allege that defendant, Kimberly 2010 Plaintiffs, Pittsburgh Brown filed a baseless lawsuit against them in this court, Brown v. J. Kaz Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-859 ("Brown Action"). Craftmatic filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Brown removed the instant action to this court. In her notice of removal, Brown asserted both that this court had federal question jurisdiction, jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. claim. Craftmatic 28 § has U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity 1332, over Craftmatic's abuse of process since conceded that the amount in controversy is far less than $75,000, making diversity jurisdiction unavailable. As such, we consider only whether this court has federal question jurisdiction over Craftmatic's abuse of process claim. Dockets.Justia.com This matter is before the court on Craftmatic' s motion to remand [Doc. No.6]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. I. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties are familiar with the extensive factual and procedural background of restated here. The the Brown Action and following facts are it both will not undisputed be and relevant to analyzing Craftmatic's motion to remand. Brown filed the Brown Action in this court on June 21, 2007. Brown alleged that Craftmatic terminated her because of her § VIlli), ("Section 1981 11 Section 1981, Pennsylvania ( "PHRA") . Human This 42 U. S. C. Relations § 1981 Act, 43 2000e, race in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Pa. court granted Craftmatic' s ("Title Cons. and the ) Stat. motion for § 951 summary judgment on the federal claims on the basis that Brown was an independent contractor and, therefore, not an employee protected by Title VII and/or Section 1981. This court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining PHRA claim. See Civil Action No. 07-859, at Doc. No. 31. Brown appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. v. J. Kaz, Inc., et al., 581 2 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. Brown 2009). Specifically, the court of appeals affirmed this court's finding that Brown was an independent contractor and, employee protected by Title VII. Id. at 181. therefore, not an However, the court of appeals reversed this court's finding regarding Section 1981 and held, as a matter of first impression, that independent contractors may bring claims of race discrimination pursuant to Section 1981. Id. The court of appeals further held that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment on Brown's Section 1981 claims. Id. at 185. The Brown Action was reopened in this court on October 5, 2009. Thereafter, provided a Craftmatic we trial date. issued a final scheduling order, In the interim, led its abuse of process on February 23, claim in state which 2010, court. Craftmatic opposes removal of that claim on the ground that this court does not have federal question jurisdiction over an abuse of process claim that solely presents a question of state law. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In order for removal to be proper, we must have original jurisdiction to hear the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). When parties dispute whether subj ect matter jurisdiction exists on removal, defendant bears the burden to show that removal is proper. Samuel Basset v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004) i Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538 1 541 3 (3d Cir. 1995). The court of appeals has noted that \\ [b] ecause lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in favor of remand. II 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985) should be Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., (citations omitted) also Steel i Valley Auth. v. Union switch and Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987). Brown seeks to remove the abuse of process claim to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. federal question jurisdiction, applies arising under the Constitution, States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. in "all Section 1331, civil actions laws or treaties of the United The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that Craftmatic's complaint must provide the basis for federal jurisdiction by raising issues of federal law. City of Chicago v. Int'l ColI. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). For both removal and original jurisdiction, the federal question must appear on the face of the complaint counterclaim, or petition for removal. 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936). If unaided the answer, Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, it does statement in the petition for removal by not appear there, can supply that want. Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 464 (1894). 4 "no II III. DISCUSSION Brown jurisdiction contends because that this Craftmatic's court abuse has of subject process matter claim, an admittedly state law claim, "necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." [DOC. No.8, at p. 3 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)]. In short, Brown claims that Craftmatic's cause of action will require an analysis of whether the Brown Action, which asserted federal claims pursuant to Title VII and Section 1981, was brought for an improper purpose. Brown claims that this is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. This court disagrees. As we have stated above, in order to support subject matter jurisdiction in this court, the federal question must appear on the face of the complaint. does not question. Inc. v. contend that Craftmatic' s complaint raises a federal Instead, Brown relies on Grable & Sons Metal Prods .. Darue Eng. & Mfg., U.S. 545 308 assertion that this court has jurisdiction. Supreme Brown herself Court held that federal (2005) to support her In Grable & Sons, the question subject jurisdiction exists where a claim "necessarily raisers] matter a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state responsibilities." 5 Id. at 314. A year later, the Supreme Court held that federal question subject matter jurisdiction on this basis attaches to only a "slim categorytt of state law claims. Empire Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 701 (2006). Healthchoice Simply put, the federal interest must justify transforming a state law claim "into a discrete and costly 'federal case.'tt Id. Here, while the outcome of the Brown Action is certainly relevant to Craftmatic's abuse of process claim, it cannot be said without doubt that this is the type of state law claim, in the absence of any other basis for subject matter jurisdiction, that should be heard in federal court. Craftmatic' s state court complaint sounds purely in Pennsylvania abuse of process language and theory. It neither expressly advances nor impliedly suggests a federal cause of action. Accordingly, in light of this court's duty to strictly construe the removal statute, we find that there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. remanded to state court. An appropriate order follows. 6 As such, this case will be IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KAZ, INC., t/d/b/a CRAFTMATIC, and CRAFTMATIC of PITTSBURGH, J. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 10-0382 v. KIMBERLY BROWN, Defendant. AND NOW, r: if ORDER this L{day of May, plaintiff's Motion to Remand 2010, upon consideration of [Doc. No.6], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Courts is directed to remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas forthwith. cc: All counsel of record of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
