UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID DUNNING,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-11050-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

COLLECTO, INC., d/b/a/ Collection Company

of America, and EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO REMOVAL OF COMPLAINT

On February 19, 2009, Plaintiff David Dunning (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in state court,

alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq.

See dkt. # 1-3. On March 19, 2009, Defendants Collecto, Inc. and Experian Information Solutions,

Inc. removed the complaint to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Dkt. # 1. On April 9,

2009, Plaintiff filed an objection to the removal. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ removal was

untimely. A removing defendant must file a notice of removal within thirty days of being served

the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(e)(1)(B). Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants were served the

complaint on February 19 and that a notice of removal was filed on March 19, which is a difference

of twenty-eight days. Thus, Defendants timely removed the complaint to this Court.

Plaintiff also suggests that remand is appropriate because a default has been entered against

Defendants in the state court proceeding. “All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such

action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the

district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1450. Moore’s Federal Practice provides the following discussion of

the applicable procedural posture in such a circumstance:

1:09-cv-11050-TLL-CEB Doc # 11 Filed 04/29/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 93
-2-

In general, the federal court takes the case on removal exactly as the case stood in

state court. Accordingly, the state court pleadings, any discovery had, orders

entered, or proceedings will be presumed valid by the district court . . . state court

rulings (including discovery orders and all other orders up to and including

judgment) remain in effect until modified or supplanted by the federal court . . . The

district court may reconsider a state court’s interlocutory orders. In addition, the

enforcement and efficacy of an existing state order will be governed by federal law.

16, Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.31[3] (Matthew Bender 3d. ed.) (citations omitted). Plaintiff

has not provided any authority that the entry of default in the state court prohibits removal to a

federal court. Thus, remand is inappropriate in this circumstance. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s objection [Dkt. # 6] is OVERRULED. In the event

that Plaintiff believes that a legal basis remains to remand the complaint, Plaintiff may file a motion

to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 or other relevant authority.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: April 29, 2008

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on April 29, 2009

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-11050-TLL-CEB Doc # 11 Filed 04/29/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 94