Service Printing and Office Supply, Inc v. Canon Solutions America, Inc et al

Filing 18

ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. It is further ORDERED that any and all pending motions are left for disposition by the sta te court after remand. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. This case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/11/2015. Copy mailed to Clerk, Tallapoosa County, Alabama. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
SERVICE PRINTING AND
OFFICE SUPPLY, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15cv451-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
This

lawsuit

was

removed

from

state

to

federal

court based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 & 1441.

The removing party asserts

that the court has diversity jurisdiction, in spite of
the presence of two non-diverse defendants, because the
non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined.

“In a

removal case alleging fraudulent joinder, the removing
party has the burden of proving that either: (1) there
is no possibility the plaintiff can establish a cause
of action against the resident defendant; or (2) the
plaintiff has fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts to

bring the resident defendant into state court. … The
burden of the removing party is a ‘heavy one.’” Crowe
v.

Coleman,

113

F.3d

(citations omitted).

1536,

1538

(11th

Cir.

1997)

Here the removing party contends

that there is no possibility that plaintiff can succeed
on its claims against the non-diverse defendants in
state court.
The court finds no fraudulent joinder in this case.
Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440 (11th Cir.
1983); Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553,
1561 (11th Cir. 1989).

(Nor has there been fraudulent

misjoinder. Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77
F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996).)

The court agrees

with plaintiff that this case should be remanded to
state

court

because

there

is

a

possibility

that

plaintiff could succeed on its claims against the nondiverse defendants in state court, and accordingly, the
removing

party

has

not

met

fraudulent joinder.

2

the

burden

of

proving

The removing party argues in the alternative that
it is entitled to jurisdictional discovery.
as

the

discovery

it

seeks

is

not

However,

relevant

to

the

court’s decision, the discovery will not be granted.
***
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE
of the court that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),
this

cause

is

remanded

to

the

Circuit

Court

of

Tallapoosa County, Alabama.
It is further

ORDERED that

any and all

pending

motions are left for disposition by the state court
after remand.
The

clerk

of

the

court

is

DIRECTED

to

appropriate steps to effect the remand.
This case is closed in this court.
DONE, this the 11th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

take