Eugene McClure and Anna Mae McClure v. Campers Inn of Sewell, Inc., et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE EUGENE MCCLURE AND ANNA MAE HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS MCCLURE, Plaintiffs, Civil Action v. No. 25-17313 (KMW-EAP) CAMPERS INN OF SEWELL, INC., et al., MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants. AND ORDER WILLIAMS, District Judge: This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendants Campers Inn RV of Sewell, Inc. d/b/a Dylan’s RV Center; Jacob Helms; Andrew Pandolfi; and M&T Bank’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“MTD,” Dkt. No. 9); Plaintiffs Eugene and Anna Mae McClure’s (“Plaintiffs”) Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12); and Plaintiffs’ unopposed Letter (Dkt. No. 13) requesting the Court deny Defendants’ MTD as moot and remand this case to state court due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

WHEREAS, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have an independent obligation to address issues of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and may do so at any stage of the litigation. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010); Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015). If a federal district court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). To establish jurisdiction, a pleading must either present a federal claim or trigger the court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Gibson v. Tip Towing & Recovery LLC, No. 23- 2919, 2024 WL 658977 at *1 (3d Cir. Feb. 16, 2024). To assert a federal claim, a pleading must assert an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Id. at *1 n.2.

To assert diversity jurisdiction, a pleading must demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship among the parties, with the amount in controversy being over $75,000.00. Jd. at *1; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that “[w]hen a plaintiff amends her complaint following her suits removal [and] eliminates the federal-law claims that enabled removal, leaving only state-law claims behind, the court’s power to decide the dispute dissolves,” Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 30 (2025); and WHEREAS, here, Defendants removed this matter based on the Court’s federal question subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff's Complaint alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(f) (see Notice of Removal and Compl., 94-101, Dkt. No. 1); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff does not assert that this Court would have diversity jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and THE COURT NOTING that Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12) asa matter of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); and THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint no longer raises a federal question. (See Am. Compl., ¥ 23.)

CONSEQUENTLY, for all the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown; IT IS on thid of February, 2026 hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ MTD (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED as moot; and ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Letter request to remand (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; and ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County.

KAREN M. WILLIAMS U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE