District Judge William M. Skretny

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Attorney Giglio filed suit—on behalf of defendants McCullen, and Rashawn and Bernice Bell—against the Buczeks asserting claims and seeking damages for injuries suffered from exposure to lead paint when, as children, McCullen and Rashawn Bell lived at or visited property owned by the Buczeks. The Buczeks federally removed suit on the ground the case implicated the False Claims Act (FCA). The court granted the pro se Buczeks in forma pauperis status, triggering the screening provisions of 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B). Further finding the action’s removal improper given the lack of diversity jurisdiction and the failure to the Buczeks’ claim that the FCA was implicated to give rise to federal-question jurisdiction, the court remanded suit to state supreme court. The FCA applies to false or fraudulent claims submitted to the federal government for payment. It has no application whatsoever in the Buczeks’ lawsuit. Because remand is required, the court denied as moot defendants’ motion to dismiss suit for failure to state a claim. It further denied defendants Rule 11 sanctions, but warned the Buczeks that further frivolous removals or frivolous filings of civil actions may result in imposition of sanctions against them.