Sanders-Cochran v. Prudential Insurance Company of America et al (CONSENT)
OPINION AND ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) The 13 Joint Motion to Remand is GRANTED; (2) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama; (3) Any other pending motions are left for resolution by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama; (4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to promptly effectuate the remand. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 12/14/2015. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:15-cv-878-TFM
OPINION AND ORDER
This action is assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings
and order entry of judgment by consent of all the parties (Docs. 14-16, filed 12/8/15) and 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. 13, filed
12/4/15). Upon consideration of the motion to remand, the Court finds the motion to remand is
due to be GRANTED.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts have a strict duty to exercise jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress.
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 1720, 135 L.Ed.2d 1
(1996). However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possesses only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Defendants, as the party removing this
action, has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car,
279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th
Cir. 2001)). Further, the federal removal statutes must be construed narrowly and doubts about
removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th
Cir. 2003) (citing Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996)); Burns v. Windsor Ins.
Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
Since this lawsuit began in state court, the court’s jurisdiction depends on the propriety of
Defendants asserted diversity jurisdiction as the basis for removal.
considering Plaintiff’s assertions and performing an independent investigation, defense
acknowledges complete diversity does not exist. The Court notes the case appears to have been
removed in good faith, but it is clear now the Court does not have jurisdiction given that ISI
Alabama, a Division of Insurance Specialists, Inc. is incorporated in Alabama. As such, remand
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) The Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.
(2) This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.
(3) Any other pending motions are left for resolution by the Circuit Court of
Montgomery County, Alabama.
(4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to promptly effectuate the
DONE this 14th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?