United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER TO SHOW
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
Order The Court’s attention has been drawn to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Hearing [Docket No. 9], filed on April 8, 2014. This lawsuit originated in state court and was removed here on April 4, 2014. The motion describes Plaintiffs’ claim as one based on Defendant Nicholas Iaonnacci’s “breach of his employment agreement with Hylant, his former employer.” Mot. at 1.
In reviewing Defendants’ petition for removal, jurisdiction appears to be premised on federal question. Our review of the complaint reveals only one federal question issue, namely, that based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Neither that statute nor the sparse case law in our circuit seems to support a private civil cause of action for the conduct at issue here. If that is so, this case must be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
“Jurisdiction is the ‘power to declare law, ’ and without it the federal courts cannot proceed.” Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999). Thus, “not only may the federal courts police subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, they must.” Id. (emphasis in original). Accordingly, briefing of jurisdictional issues shall proceed on an expedited basis: Defendants shall file their jurisdictional statement no later than April 15, 2014. Plaintiffs shall file their response by April 21, 2014. ...