United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF REMAND
F. Cox United States District Court Judge.
September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in federal
court, naming COG Studio, LLC as the Defendant.
Plaintiff's “Complaint For Declaratory Judgment And
Relief Pursuant To 17 U.S.C. § 301” included two
copyright claims (“Invalidity of Copyright” and
“Non-Infringement of Copyright, ”) and a claim
under the Lanham Act. It also included state-law claims.
After that Complaint was filed with the Clerk's Office,
the action was assigned Case Number 16-13375.
having initiated this civil action, Plaintiffs then filed a
“Notice of Removal” (Docket Entry No. 2) in this
existing civil action. Counsel for Plaintiffs listed the Case
Number 16-13375 on the Notice of Removal.
courts have an independent obligation to investigate and
police the boundaries of their own jurisdiction.”
Douglas v. E.F. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150
F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir. 1998). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. §
1447 expressly provides that “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Order issued on September 27, 2016, this Court ordered that
the state-court action purportedly removed to this Court
shall be “REMANDED to Wayne County Circuit
Court.” (Docket Entry No. 3). This Court first noted
that the Notice of Removal was improperly filed in an
already-existing action. Notably, this Court also concluded
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
asserted in the removed state-court action in any event.
(See Docket Entry No. 3 at 2-3, explaining that even
if Plaintiffs had properly removed the state-court action,
this Court concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the state-court action that Plaintiffs
sought to remove.). This Court also declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law
claims asserted in this action and dismissed those claims
without prejudice. (Id.). That left Plaintiff's
federal claims remaining in this action.
September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court's September 27, 2016 Remand
Order. (Docket Entry No. 5). Finding all of Plaintiffs'
arguments without merit, this Court denied that motion.
October 10, 2016, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case.
(See Docket Entry No. 9, “Pursuant to F.
R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff(s) through their counsel, hereby give
notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily
dismissed, without prejudice against ALL
defendant(s).”) (emphasis added).
days after voluntarily dismissing this case, on October 18,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, indicating that
Plaintiffs wish to appeal this Court's Remand Order and
its denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.
(Docket Entry No. 10).
October 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a “Consolidated
Motion For Stay Of Remand & State Court Action Pending
Appeal” (Docket Entry No. 12) wherein Plaintiffs ask
this Court to issue “an order staying the Notice of
Remand and any further proceedings in the Wayne County
Circuit Court, pending resolution of the Salon's
appeal.” (Id. at 6).
evaluating motions to stay, the factors for injunctive relief
are considered: 1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits; 2) whether the applicant
will be irreparably injured absent a stay; 3) whether
issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
interested parties; and 4) where the public interest
lies.” Felder's Auto Body and Frame Shop, Inc.
v. Conely, 113 F. App'x 68, 70 (6th Cir. 2004).
the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits of their
appeal. That is because a district court's
order of remand based upon lack of subject matter
jurisdiction “is beyond all power of appellate review,
even if based on erroneous principles or analyses.”
Page v. Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 131 (6th Cir.
1995). The Court concludes that the remaining factors also
weigh against a stay.
the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay is