Forrence et al v. Koch et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kenneth Forrence, et al.
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-280-LM
Paul Koch, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Paul Koch removed this civil action from the
Hillsborough County (N.H.) Superior Court, Southern Division,
asserting federal question and diversity jurisdiction. 	See
Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1). Before the court for preliminary
review are Koch’s Notice of Removal and attachments thereto.
See LR 4.3(d)(2); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A case may be removed to federal court if this court would
have had original jurisdiction over the matter. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). 	This court has authority to consider, sua sponte,
whether it has jurisdiction over a removed case. 	See York v.
Day Transfer Co., 525 F. Supp. 2d 289, 295 (D.R.I. 2007); see
also Am. Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., Inc., 989 F.2d
1256, 1258 (1st Cir. 1993) (court is obliged to address
propriety of removal as threshold matter). 	In the context of
Case 1:19-cv-00280-LM Document 9 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 3

2
disputes over removal jurisdiction, it is the removing
defendant’s burden to show that removal was proper. 	See Fayard
v. Northeast Vehicle Servs., LLC, 533 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir.
2008); see also Acosta–Ramirez v. Banco Popular de P.R., 712
F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2013). 	“Furthermore, the removal statute
should be strictly construed, and any doubts about the propriety
of removal should be resolved against the removal of an action.”
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 431 F. Supp.
2d 109, 116 (D. Mass. 2006). 	Remand to the state courts is
required if, at any time, it appears that the district court
lacks jurisdiction over the case. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
This court previously remanded this case due to lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. 	See Forrence v. Koch, Civ. No. 18-
cv-134-LM, 2018 DNH 140 (D.N.H. July 9, 2018). 	Judge McCafferty
found neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction. 	Id.
at 4-8. 	The instant removal notice, filed roughly eight months
after the earlier remand order, is identical in every relevant
respect to the one defendant previously filed. 	The result
should be no different.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should remand
this action to the state court for lack of removal jurisdiction.
Case 1:19-cv-00280-LM Document 9 Filed 04/19/19 Page 2 of 3

3
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation 	within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 19, 2019
cc: 	All pro se parties and counsel of record
Case 1:19-cv-00280-LM Document 9 Filed 04/19/19 Page 3 of 3