Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180314_0000152.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:21:37+00:00

Document:
DALE BONEY, et al., Defendants.
Nina Shahin, Dover, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Dale Boney.
Plaintiff Nina Shahin ("Shahin"), who proceeds pro se, filed a formal petition for transfer of a case she filed in the Court of Common Pleas for the State of Delaware in and for Kent County, Shahin v. Boney, CA. No. CPU5-14-000682. (D.I. 1) The petition was docketed as a notice of removal. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will summarily remand the case to die Court of Common Pleas for die State of Delaware in and for Kent County.
Shahin then filed the petition to transfer (filed as a notice of removal on April 11, 2017). (D.I. 1) However, she continued with her filings in State court. Shahin filed a motion for reargument on her request to join an additional party, which was denied by the State Court on July 11, 2017. (D.I. 13-8 at 1) She filed a motion for relief from judgment on July 31, 2017, which was denied by the Court of Common Pleas on November 30, 2017. (Id. at 2-4) At that point, the Court of Common Pleas advised Shahin that it would not consider further motions made by her in the action and advised the only avenue left was an appeal to the Superior Court. (Id. at 4) Shahin filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County. See Shahin v. Boney, CA. No. K17A-12-004 NEP. The Court takes judicial notice that the appeal is pending and a briefing schedule was entered on January 18, 2018.
The exercise of removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), which states that, "[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." In order to remove a civil action from state court to federal court, a district court must have original jurisdiction by either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441(a). Sections 1441(a) and 1443 both provide that the action may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States. See Id. at §§ 1441(a), 1446. The removal statutes are strictly construed, and require remand to State court if any doubt exists over whether removal was proper. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 104 (1941).
A court will remand a removed case "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party seeking removal bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction. See Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch <& Signal Dip. Am. Standard, Inc., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987); Zoren v. Genesis Energy, L.P., 195 F.Supp.2d 598, 602 (D. Del. 2002). In determining whether remand based on improper removal is appropriate, the court "must focus on the plaintiffs complaint at the time the petition for removal was filed, " and assume all factual allegations therein are true. Steel Valley Auth., 809 F.2d at 1010. Upon a determination that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court is obligated to remand, sua sponte, to the State court from which it was removed. See Scott v. New York Admin, for Children's Services, 678 Fed.Appx. 56 (3d Cir. Feb. 28, 2017).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 v. 
 § 1447
 v. 
 v. 
 v.