## Facts

- Cheryl Ann Bracken and her attorney, H. David Rothman, sued in Pennsylvania state court over allegedly defamatory statements made by opposing counsel during Bracken’s deposition in related litigation.
- The complaint asserted state-law claims, including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and equitable relief (accounting and constructive trust) aimed at certain defendants’ assets.
- Anticipating that defendants would invoke Pennsylvania’s absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings, plaintiffs alleged that applying that privilege would violate their First Amendment rights.
- Defendants removed the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on the complaint’s First Amendment allegations.
- The District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and then dismissed the cases on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-law complaint supports federal-question jurisdiction and removal when the only federal issue is raised as an anticipatory response to a likely state-law defense.
2. Whether the District Court erred by denying remand and reaching the merits after removal.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held that the District Court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court ruled that a federal constitutional argument aimed solely at defeating an anticipated defense does not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule.
- The court vacated the District Court’s orders denying remand and dismissing the cases.
- The court remanded with instructions to return the cases to Pennsylvania state court.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists only when a federal issue appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint as part of the plaintiff’s cause of action.
- A plaintiff cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by anticipating a defense and pleading a federal constitutional response to that defense.
- Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 requires that the case could have been filed originally in federal court; the well-pleaded complaint rule governs that inquiry.
- Absent an applicable exception (e.g., complete preemption), state-law tort claims do not become removable merely because the complaint discusses federal constitutional limits on a potential state-law immunity or privilege.

## Conclusion

Because plaintiffs pleaded only state-law causes of action and invoked the First Amendment solely to counter an anticipated absolute-privilege defense, the case did not “arise under” federal law; removal was improper, and the federal court was required to remand to state court rather than dismiss on the merits.


Bracken v. Matgouranis, 296 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2002)