United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MARK S. GERTEL, MARK S. GERTEL, P.C., CHERRY HILL, NJ, Attorney for plaintiff.
MARVIN L. FREEMAN STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TRENTON, NJ, Attorney for defendants Joseph Fuentes, George Auge, Ryan, Stec, R.J. Markert, New Jersey State Police.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
This matter having come before Court on plaintiff's motion to remand; and
Defendants opposing the motion to remand on grounds that it is time-barred; and
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c), "[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a)[;]" and
A notice of removal was filed on October 4, 2013, and a copy of the notice of removal was faxed on the same day to plaintiff's counsel; and
The motion to remand was filed on November 5, 3013 on grounds of untimeliness; and
Defendants have argued that because the notice of removal was filed on October 4, 2013, plaintiff was required to file a motion to remand within 30 days, or by November 3, 2013; but since November 3, 2013, was a Sunday, the deadline continued to run to the next day, November 4, 2013, and since plaintiff did not file until November 5, 2013, the motion to remand is untimely; and
Although the motion to remand was filed only one day after the deadline, the Third Circuit has strictly interpreted the thirty-day deadline in § 1447(c); see Roxbury Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Anthony S. Cupo Agency , 316 F.3d 224, 227-28 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding that district court had no power to remand for a procedural defect once the 30-day statutory period lapsed); Brown v. Modell's PA II, Inc., No. 08-1528 , 2008 WL 2600253, at *3 (E.D.Pa. July 1, 2008) (denying plaintiffs' motion to remand because it was filed thirty-one days after removal); Michaels v. State of N.J. , 955 F.Supp. 315 (D.N.J. 1996) ("Barring extraordinary circumstances, this court is not inclined to expand the thirty-day time limitation or permit amendments to a notice of removal after the thirty days have run."); and
Plaintiff filed no response to defendants' opposition to their motion to remand, or provided any reason or grounds for "good cause" for failing to file the motion to remand within the thirty-day time frame; see Ramos v. Quien , 631 F.Supp.2d 601 (E.D.Pa. 2008) (denying plaintiff's request because he failed to show his neglect in meeting § 1447(c)'s strict thirty-day deadline was "excusable" "for good cause."); and
Therefore, it is this 14th day of April, 2014,
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand ...