Service Printing and Office Supply, Inc v. Canon Solutions America, Inc et al
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.,
CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA,
INC., et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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.
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
Here the removing party contends
that there is no possibility that plaintiff can succeed
on its claims against the non-diverse defendants in
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
plaintiff could succeed on its claims against the nondiverse defendants in state court, and accordingly, the
The removing party argues in the alternative that
it is entitled to jurisdictional discovery.
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),
Tallapoosa County, Alabama.
It is further
any and all
motions are left for disposition by the state court
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
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?