United States District Court, D. New Jersey
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH A. DICKSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case from the District of New Jersey to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, Law Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (the "Motion to Remand"). The Hon. Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. referred Plaintiffs' Motion to this Court for a Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, the Court did not hear oral argument. After having considered the parties' submissions, and for good cause shown; and
WHEREAS, on or around October 10, 2012, Plaintiffs originally filed this matter in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, Law Division, (Compl., ECF No. 1); and
WHEREAS Defendant United States of America removed the matter to this Distriction or about January 22, 2013, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1442; and
WHEREAS Defendants United States of America, the United States Department of Justice and the United States Marshal's Service (collectively, the "Federal Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against them. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs did not oppose that application; and
WHEREAS, by Order dated August 26, 2013, the Hon. Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. granted the Federal Defendants' motion and dismissed all claims against those entities; and
WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Remand on November 27, 2013, seeking to remand this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, arguing that the District Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter now that all claims against the Federal Defendants have been dismissed. (ECF No. 15); and
WHEREAS this Court finds that the claims set out in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which concern a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about September 9, 2011, (ECF No. 1 at 4-15), and seek relief for injuries Plaintiffs allegedly suffered in that accident, do not "aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." The District Court does not, therefore, have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and
WHEREAS, while there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and all remaining Defendants,  Plaintiffs have certified that the amount in controversy in this matter does not exceed $75, 000. (ECF No. 15 at 3). The Court finds, therefore, that the District Court does not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and
WHEREAS, the Court finds that, given the dismissal of the Federal Defendants, the District Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides, in pertinent part: "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded."; and
WHEREAS no party has filed any opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand,
IT IS on this 17th day of January, 2014,
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand be GRANTED pursuant to 28 ...