2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-12-2010 

# As se m Abul k

h air v . Li b e r t y I ns C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 10-1580

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" As s e m Abul k

h air v . L ibe r t y I n s C o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1350. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1350AL D- 18 3 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 10- 1580 ASSEM A. ABULKHAI R, Appe l l ant

v. LI BE RT Y M UT UA L INS URAN CE CO MP AN Y

On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt fo r the Distri ct

of New Jer se y ( D. C. Ci v. No. 09- c v- 06489) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble J ose L. Linar es Subm i tt e d for

Pos s i bl e Summ ary

Ac t i on Pur s uant

t o T h irdC ircu it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6

Apr i l 29, 2010 Befo re : SLO VITE R, AM BR O andSM ITH, Circ uit Jud ges

( Opi ni on fi l e d: May

12, 2010) OP INI ON PER CURI AM. A ssem A . A b u lkh air ap p eals f

ro m th e D istrict C o u rt’s o rd er d ism issin g h is co m p lain t w ithp rej u d ice du e to A b u lkh air’s im p ro p er rem o v al o f

th e actio nf

ro m stateL ib erty d idn o t raise an y

p ro cedu ral o b

j ectio nto th e rem o v al n o tice, an dit d id 1 no t a sk the Dis tr ic t Cou rt to re m and the m atte r t o state court. Inst ea d, it as ked that re m ov al be “denie d” fo r l ac k o f sub ject m atte r juris dict ion. Cert . i n O pp . t o P la inti ff’s No ti ce of Rem ov al at

¶ 9 (docket #2). 2 c ourt . For

the r e a s ons that

fol l ow, we wi l l s umm ar i l y a ffi rm i n part , va c at e i n part , and d irect th e D istrict C o u rt to rem an dth e m atter to state co u rt. I. O n A ugus t 27, 2007, A bul khai r fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nt agai ns t L i ber t yM ut ual I ns ur ance C om pany( “Li ber t y ”) i n an Ess ex C ount y , N ew J er s ey , s t at e cour t , s eeki ng a declar at oryj ud gm ent t o co m pel arbit rat i on of a c l ai m t o recov er unde ri nsured m otor i st b en ef it s. O n Jan u ary 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , the s tat e c o u rt g ran ted L iberty ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t an d d ism iss e d a ll cla im s w ith p re ju d ice . S h o rtlyp rio r to th e o rd e r o f d ism iss a l, on D ece m ber 28, 2009, A bul khai r fi l ed a not i ce of r emoval i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t , al ong w it h a c o p y o f h is co m p lai n t and a m o ti o n fo r l ea v e to p roc ee d in f o rm a p au p eris (“IF P ”). L i ber t y oppos ed t he r emoval , ar gui ng t hat t her e i s no fede r al s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on over t he ac t i on, and advi s i ng t he D i s t r i ct C our t t hat t he s t at e t r i al cour t had ent er ed s um m ar y j udgm ent aft er t he r emoval not i ce w as fi l ed. O n Febr uar y9, 2010, t he 1 D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed A bul khai r ’ s m ot i on for l eave t o pr ocee d I FP and r evi ew ed t he
c o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t th e re m o v a l n o tice f a iled to c o m p ly“ w ith al m os t ever y as pectof t he r emoval r ul es , ” and t hat t he s t at e t r i al cour t had ent er ed j udgm ent for L i ber t y . T hus , concl udi ng t hat t he ac t i on w as not pr oper l yr emoved, t he3

D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t w ith p re ju d ice . A b u lk h a ir tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. II . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enar yr evi ew . See,
e. g. , A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( r evi ew i s pl enar yof or der d ism issi n g IF P co m p lai n t) . T h e p arti es w ere ad v ised that this C o u rt m igh t t ak e su m m ary act i on, s ee 3 dC ir. L .A .R . 2 4 .7 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 , an dth eir re s p o n s e s h a v e b e e n c o n s id e re d . Summ ary a c t i on i s warr ant e d whe n “no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed. ” I d. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

corr ec tl y concluded that the re m ov al of this ac ti on was im prop er beca use Abu lkhair , the plai ntiff, re m ov ed his own suit , andhe did so m ore than two ye ar s a ft e r

fi l i ng i t . Se e 28 U. S. C. §§ 1446( a )
- ( b) ; s e e a l s o LaChe m i s e La c os t e v. Alli gator Co., 506 F.2d33 9, 34 3 n .4 (3d C ir . 197 4) (“ [I]t is axiom at ic that a pla inti ff

m ay n o t rem o v e anactio nto f ed eral co u rt.”). Wh ile L ib erty d idn o t arg u e th ese d ef

ects inits oppos i t i on t o the r e m ova l not i c e , thi s Court ha s he l d that

“ [a ]n i rr e gul ar i ty

i n r e m ova l of a case to f

ed eral co u rt is to b e co n sid ered‘j u risd ictio n al’ ... if th e case co u ldn o t in itially have be e n fi l e d i n fe de r a l c ourt . ” Kor e aExc hange Bank v. Tr a c kwi s e Sa l e s Cor p. , 66 F.3d46 , 50 (3dCir. 19 95 ). Ab ulkh ai r’ s c as e c ou ld no t have bee n f il ed init ia ll y

in federal co u rt b ecau se, as L ib erty

arg u ed , th e D istrict C o u rt lack edsub j ect m atter j u risd ictio n . A b u lkh air’s co m

p lain t, w h ichis essen tially a b reach o f

co n tract actio n , rev eals n o b asis f o r eith er f ed eral qu estio no r d iv ersity j u risd ictio n , w h ichw ere th e tw o g ro u n d s citedinWhil e Abu lkhair al so m ade pas si ng re ference to 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 3, re m ov al 2 unde r that pr ovi s i on wa s pl a i nl y

i m pr ope r . Se e Davi s v. Gl ant on, 107 F. 3d 1044, 1047 (3d C ir . 199 7) (dis cuss ing require m ents fo r § 14 43 re m ov al ). In Bromwell , this Cou rt

decl ined to adop t a

“futil it y exce ption” to § 1 44 7(c) ’s 3 rem an drequ irem en t, h o ld in g th at “w h ena f ed eral co u rt h as n o j u risd ictio no f a case re m ov ed froma s tate court, it m ust r em and andno t dis m is s on the grou ndof fu ti li ty .” 1 1 5 F .3 dat 2 1 4 . T h u s, w h ile L ib erty arg u es th at a rem an dto state co u rt w o u ldb e f u tile beca use the st at e tri al court has ente re d summ ar y ju dg m ent for Liberty , “ it is un nece ss ar

y f o r u s to ad dress th e ... arg u m en t th at rem an dw o u ldb e f u tile.” Id . 4 th e rem o v al n o tice. S ee 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 4 4 1 (a)-(b ); K au f m anv . A llstate N .J. In s. C o ., 2 56 1 F .3d 1 44 , 152 (3d C ir . 200 9); Duk es v. U.S. Heal thcare , 57 F .3d 3 50 , 353 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). The l aw gove rni ng r e m ova l pr ovi de s that , “ [i ]f at any t i m e be for e fi na l judgm e nt i t a ppe ar s that

the di s tr i c t

c ourt l a c ks s ubje c t

m att e r jur i s di c t i on, the c a s e s ha l l be rem an d ed .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 (c). H ere, alth o u g hn o t en tirely clear f ro m th e reco rd , it a ppe ar s that

the Di s tr i c t

Court di s m i s s e d the c om

pl a i nt r athe r than e nt e r

ar e m and be c aus e i t not e d that

the s t at e tr i a l c ourt

ha d e nt e r e d judgm e nt

for Li be rty a ft e r the re m ov al no ti ce was fil ed. As dis cuss ed abov e, ho wever, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt la cked subj ec t m atte r juris dict ion o ver the re m ov ed ac ti on , a nd , a s s uch, a r em and w as re qu ir ed. See Br omwe l l v. Mi c hi gan Mut . I ns . Co. , 115 F. 3d 208, 213 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) ( “ Upon a dete rm inat ion that a

federalcourt l ac ks subj ec t- m atte r juris dict ion o ver a part ic ular actio n , ... § 1 4 4 7 (c) m an d ates th at th e m atter b e rem an d edto th e state co u rt f ro m w h ichit
w as rem o v ed .”). A cco rd in g ly , in asm u chas th e D istrict C o u rt d ism issedth e co m p lain t, 3
w e w ill v acate its o rd er an dd irect it to en ter a remand .5 II I. Insu m , w e w ill af

f irm th e D istrict C o u rt’s co n clu sio nth at th e rem o v al o f th is a c t i on wa s i m

pr ope r . Howe ve r , we wi l l va c at e that port i on of i t s Fe br

uary 9, 2010, Order that dis m is se d the com plai nt with prejud ic e, and w e wil l r em and w it h an i ns tr uc t i on that

the Di s tr i c t

Court e nt e r an or de r unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1447( c ) r e m andi ng the m atte r t o state court for la ck of subj ec t m atte r juris dict ion. Althou gh we no te that A b u lkh air h as p ro ceed edIF P , th e D istrict C o u rt m ay co n sid er up o nrem an dw h eth er its or de r r e m andi ng the c a s e t o s t at e c ourt s houl d r e qui r e Abul kha i r t o pay “ jus t c os t s and any a c t ua l e xpe ns e s , i nc l udi ng att orne y fe e s , i nc urr e d a s ar e s ul t

of the r e m ova l . ” 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 7(c) ; s ee Mart in v. Franklin Capita l Corp., 546 U.S. 13 2, 14 1 (20 05 ). We expres s no v ie w o n w hether such an award wou ld be approp ri at e.