Allen et al v. University View, I LLC et al
OPINION AND ORDER, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that plf Donald H. Allen Development, Inc.'s 1 MOTION to Remand to State Court is granted and that, pursuant to 28 USC 1447(c), this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama for want of subject-matter jurisdiction; directing the Clerk to take appropriate steps to effect the remand; also directing the Clerk to fax or email a copy of this order to the appropriate Lee County Circuit Clerk and to the State Judge who is handling the state-court proceedings; this case is closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/23/12. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist). Faxed, as directed, in order(djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
DONALD H. ALLEN
UNIVERSITY VIEW, LLC, KATHY )
MATHEWS, and KATHY MATHEWS )
as personal representative )
of the Estate of Lindburgh )
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Donald H. Allen Development, Inc. (“DAD”)
against several defendants, including University View,
LLC, and Kathy Mathews.
§§ 1332, 1441.
Mathews, appearing pro se,
DAD now moves for remand arguing, among
other things, that there is not complete diversity.
the following reasons, that motion will be granted.
For purposes of removal pursuant to diversity-ofcitizenship jurisdiction, a removing defendant has the
plaintiff is different from that of each defendant and
(2) that no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b)(2); see also Lincoln Prop. Co.
v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84, 89 (2005) (“Since Strawbridge
statutory formulation ‘between ... citizens of different
plaintiffs and all defendants.”).
Mathews’s notice of
removal is deficient on both fronts.
First, it plainly
states that the “Plaintiffs are citizens of Alabama and
defendants are citizens of Alabama and Florida.”
of Removal (Doc. No. 2) at 2.
Although there would be a
§ 1332(a)(1) requires “complete diversity,” that is, no
plaintiff may be from the same state as any defendant see
Stillwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 663 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th
plaintiff in a case with an Alabama defendant destroys
Mathews freely admits, she is a citizen of Alabama.
statute, a civil action may not be removed on diversityof-citizenship grounds “if any of the parties in interest
properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of
the State in which such action is brought.”
This action was originally brought in an
Alabama court and therefore a citizen of Alabama, like
Mathews, cannot remove it to federal court on diversityof-citizenship grounds.
Finally, the court wants to make Mathews, who is
proceeding pro se, aware that the removal statute is not
to be used as a tactic to avoid state-court obligations.
The court strongly suggests that she consult with an
attorney before filing another notice of removal in this
Any subsequent, frivolous removal will likely be
met with sanctions.
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court that plaintiff Donald H. Allen Development,
Inc.’s motion to remand (doc. no. 1) is granted and that,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this cause is remanded
to the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama for want of
appropriate steps to effect the remand.
The clerk of this court is also DIRECTED to fax or
email a copy of this order to the appropriate Lee County
Circuit Clerk and to the State Judge who is handling the
This case is closed.
DONE, this the 23rd day of March, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?