| Venue: | US Dist. Ct. E. Dist. MI |
| Facts: | Salei settled a claim diled in MI state court over gambling debts from NJ. Then the casino stopped honiring the terms of the settlement, and Salei sued. |
| Posture: | Suit in MI state court (includes a federal claim under FCRA). Casino removes, Salei asks for remand. State claims are remanded, but the district court holds on to the federal claim. |
| Issue: | Should we remand those cases, and before that, can they properly be removed in the first place? |
| Holding: | We can't take jurisdiction over the state claims: they're wholly separate and independent from the federal claim. |
| Rule: | Article III trumps the removal statute (§ 1441(c)). |
| Reasoning: | Here, the United Mine Workers v. Gibbs standard isn't met, because
the claims don't stem from a common nucleus of operative fact.
That means that this case is broader than what Article III empowers
federal courts to hear. The right of removal is less important than
the right to come to court at all, and declining to remove a case
doesn't deprive a litigant of a forum, so we should hew close to
the constitution.
Anything separate enough to qualify for removal under § 1441(c) is probably beyond what Article III permits. |
| Dicta: | Courts are not free to ignore the constraints imposed upon them by the
constitution simply because a statute serves judicial efficiency.
Statutes must be read as written, not as we would wish them to be written. |