DALE A. KIMBALL, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Mr. Fitzgerald's request for an order to be issued to Fourth District Court, State of Utah, "noticing the removal of the [state court action] to Federal Court" and prohibiting the state court from further proceedings. Mr. Fitzgerald filed his motion on February 28, 2003. In addition, on February 18, 2003, he filed Notice of Removal and a Verified Complaint.
Mr. Fitzgerald's Verified Complaint has been filed as a separate action, Case No. 2;03CV235 PGC. Following the court's standard procedures, the case has been randomly assigned to the Honorable Paul G. Cassell.
Mr. Fitzgerald states that the grounds for removal are based on the allegations contained in his Verified Complaint and "the participation in the matters contained in the case by a United States federal agency or department, and of the acts of an employee or employees thereof" See Notice of Removal of State Case to Federal Court.
However, "[t]he presence of absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the `well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987); see also, Garley v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207 (10th Cir. 2001). Thus, the plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law. Furthermore, "cases originally brought in state court may not be removed to federal court even if a federal defense is anticipated in the plaintiffs complaint. . . ." Garley, 236 F.3d at 1207.
In the instant case, the only claim presented in the complaint originally filed in state court is an unlawful detainer claim, which is governed by state law. There is no federal question presented on the face of that complaint, and Mr. Fitzgerald cannot rely on his recently filed federal Complaint — in which he alleges federal claims against First National Bank — as a basis for removing the state court action. Thus, this court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.
Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that diversity of citizenship exists between the parties or that the jurisdictional minimum amount of money is in controversy. Thus, this court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, because this court does not have federal question or diversity jurisdiction over the claim asserted in the state court action, that action must be remanded to Fourth District Court.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald's motion for an order removing his state court case to federal court [docket entry #3] is DENIED, and the state court action is REMANDED to Fourth District Court, State of Utah. This case is now closed. Mr. Fitzgerald's federal action, Case No. 2:03CV235 PGC remains unaffected by the remand of the state court action.