Corp. v. Karabell, 719 F. Supp. 1254, 1255 (D.N.J. 1989).
Here, Defendant's bid for diversity jurisdiction fails because of the amount in controversy requirement. Plaintiff's complaint at the time Defendant filed for removal specified the amount in controversy to be $ 17,067.97,
well short of the required $ 50,000.
Defendant's alternative claim that this court has federal question jurisdiction based on defective service of process must also fail. Before an action started in state court can be removed to a federal district court, it is necessary that the action could have originally been brought in federal court. Shelly v. Pennsylvania, 451 F. Supp. 899, 901 (M.D.Pa. 1978). The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that the federal question be presented on the face of Plaintiff's complaint. Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nat. Ben. Fund for Hosp. and Health Care Employees, 740 F. Supp. 343, 348 (E.D.Pa. 1989).
Plaintiff's complaint, on its face, presents no questions of federal law. Plaintiff brought this mortgage foreclosure under Pennsylvania law without reference to any federal statute or common law. Defendant's allegation that the service of process was defective is after the fact and not, therefore, sufficient to remove this case under federal question jurisdiction.
We must conclude that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction. Therefore, this case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania with just costs to be paid by Defendant.
ORDER - August 16, 1993, Filed, Entered
AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 1993, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the above captioned case, listed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, March Term 1992 No. 4197, be remanded to said state court, and it is further ORDERED that Defendant pay all costs and additional expenses including attorney's fees incurred as a result of this removal.
BY THE COURT:
J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.