Jones et al v. McCoy et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) The Plaintiffs' motion to remand (doc. 14 ) is GRANTED. 2) The case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 9/24/2024. (Certified copies of order and docket sheet mailed to Russell County CC)(CWL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY D. JONES JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIJOIN M. MCCOY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:24-cv-369-ECM
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. 14). 1 On
May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs Gregory D. Jones Jr. (“Jones”) and Emily D. Henry (“Henry”),
Georgia citizens (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), sued Dijoin M. McCoy (“McCoy”), an
Alabama citizen; R.M. Greene, Inc., d/b/a CTV Beam (“R.M. Greene, Inc.”), an Alabama
citizen; and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), an Illinois
citizen 2 (collectively the “Defendants”); and fictitious defendants 3 in the Circuit Court of

1

The Court refers to the document and page numbers generated by CM/ECF.

The Defendants’ notice of removal states that State Farm is an Illinois citizen. (Doc. 1 at para. 6). The
Plaintiffs argue that State Farm is a citizen of Alabama. (Doc. 14 at para. 2). Despite the parties’
disagreement, the Court pretermits discussion on State Farm’s citizenship because it is not dispositive
regarding the Plaintiffs’ pending motion to remand. (Doc. 14). Therefore, the Court assumes without
deciding that State Farm is an Illinois citizen.
2

For the purposes of determining whether this action is removable, “the citizenship of defendants sued
under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).

3

Russell County, Alabama, Case Number 57-CV-2024-900132.00, for claims stemming
from an automobile accident. (Doc. 1-1 at 3–12); (doc. 1 at paras. 2–6).
On June 24, 2024, the Defendants removed the case to this Court, asserting diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 at 1). On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs
moved to remand this case to state court in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Doc. 14).
The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs’
motion to remand (doc. 14) is due to be GRANTED.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court, like all federal courts, is a “court[] of limited jurisdiction” and
“possess[es] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may only remove
“state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Because “removal
jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns,” federal courts must “construe removal
statutes strictly[,]” and all doubts regarding the existence of federal jurisdiction “should be
resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d
405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and
1441(a) federal jurisdiction exists—and removal is proper—if the parties are completely
diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.
“[T]he burden of establishing removal jurisdiction rests with the defendant seeking
removal.” Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013). Moreover,
subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any point in the litigation by the parties or
2

raised sua sponte by the Court. Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541, 548 (2019)
(“Unlike most arguments, challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by the
defendant ‘at any point in the litigation,’ and courts must consider them sua sponte.”
(quoting Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012))); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If
at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded [to state court].”).
A civil action, otherwise removable under diversity jurisdiction “may not be
removed 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added).
Commonly referred to as the “forum defendant rule,” 4 this rule is procedural in nature
rather than jurisdictional. See generally Bowman v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 423 F. Supp. 3d
1286, 1291–92 (N.D. Ala. 2019) (describing the genesis of the “forum defendant rule” as
a procedural requirement). 5 Because the forum defendant rule is procedural in nature, it
can be waived. Pacheo de Perez v. AT & T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1372 n.4 (11th Cir. 1998)
(“removal of a case with resident defendants is a procedural defect . . . [but] the defect is
waivable”) (emphasis in original). A plaintiff must object to this procedural defect, the
forum defendant’s removal, within thirty days after the filing of the notice of removal. 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). If a plaintiff properly objects to removal by invoking the forum

The Plaintiffs refer to the forum defendant rule as the “resident defendant rule.” (Doc. 14 at paras. 3, 6).
For purposes of this memorandum opinion, the Court views the “resident defendant rule” and the “forum
defendant rule” as the same rule articulated under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The Court uses “forum
defendant” rather than “resident defendant.”

4

5

While the Court recognizes that Bowman is non-binding authority, the Court finds its analysis persuasive.
3

defendant rule—removal is procedurally barred, and a federal court must remand the action
to state court. See Henderson v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Co., 454 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006)
(“When a defendant removes a case to federal court on diversity grounds, a court must
remand the matter back to state court if any of the properly joined parties in interest are
citizens of the state in which the suit was filed.”).
III. DISCUSSION
The Defendants’ notice of removal alleges that jurisdiction is proper in this Court
because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. (Doc. 1 at paras. 1, 9). The Defendants allege that “based upon the facts as
known” the Plaintiffs are seeking “damages in excess” of $75,000. (Id. at para. 9). The
Defendants further allege that Jones and Henry are citizens of Georgia (id. at paras. 2–3);
McCoy and R.M. Greene, Inc. are citizens of Alabama (id. at paras. 4–5); and that State
Farm is a citizen of Illinois (id. at para. 6). The Plaintiffs’ motion to remand does not
substantively challenge the Defendants’ citizenship allegations. 6 Instead, the Plaintiffs
invoke the forum defendant rule.
Removal under diversity jurisdiction is improper “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in
Alabama state court, and Defendants McCoy and R.M. Greene, Inc. are properly served

Indeed, the Plaintiffs argue that State Farm is a citizen of Alabama. However, the Plaintiffs note “it is not
necessary to make that argument” because McCoy and R.M. Greene, Inc. are Alabama citizens and thus
“the Resident Defendant rule applies, and this case should be remanded.” (Doc. 14 at paras. 2, 5–6).

6

4

Alabama citizens. Therefore, the forum defendant rule applies, the Defendants’ removal
was improper, and this suit must be remanded to the Circuit Court of Russell County,
Alabama.
Notably, the Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (doc. 14)
and concede that remand “is due to be granted.” (See docs. 16 and 18). The Plaintiffs
objected to the Defendants’ notice of removal within thirty days under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Therefore, the Plaintiffs did not waive the right to contest the Defendants’ procedurally
defective notice of removal. Upon consideration of the notice of removal (doc. 1), the
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (doc. 14), and the Defendants’ responses (docs. 16 and 18),
the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion and remands this matter to Alabama state court.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (doc. 14) is GRANTED.

2.

The case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama.

DONE this 24th day of September, 2024.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5