18. Should the court grant the landscaper's motion to remand?

Removal of a civil action from state to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). To be removable, the federal court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim, such as diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Additionally, a defendant seeking to remove to federal court must file a notice of removal in the district court where the state action is pending.

Under § 1441(b), a diversity case will only be removable if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. As such, a forum defendant (i.e., a defendant who is a citizen of the forum state) may NOT remove an action from state to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, when a case has been improperly removed to federal court, the plaintiff may move to remand back to state court. A federal court is required to remand a case that was improperly removed.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction authorizes a federal court with original subject-matter jurisdiction to hear other claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim, even if they do not have independent grounds for federal jurisdiction. The underlying basis for subject-matter jurisdiction may be either federal question or diversity. In cases based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction may not be used to cure a case that has been improperly removed by a forum defendant.

C is correct. When a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction is based solely on diversity and the defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is brought, the action is not removable. Here, because the homeowner is a citizen of State B, where the original action was filed, the case was not removable. Therefore, the landscaper's motion to remand should be granted.

A is incorrect. A federal court may not use supplemental jurisdiction to retain an improperly-removed case. As a forum defendant, the homeowner's removal was improper and supplemental jurisdiction is not a basis for denying the landscaper's proper motion to remand back to state court.

B is incorrect. When a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction is based solely on diversity and the defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was originally brought, the action is not removable. Because the homeowner is a citizen of State B, the original forum, removal was improper and remand should be granted.

D is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. Although the motion to remand should be granted, it is because the homeowner was not permitted to remove as a forum defendant, not because the notice of removal was filed in federal court. On the contrary, the notice of removal must be filed in federal court, not state court, as implied by this answer choice.