Oppenheimer et al v. Lint et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 3 Defendant/Garnishee Argonaut Insurance Company's Motion to Have Judgment Debtors Regarded as Nominal Parties or, Alternatively, Motion to Realign Parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 07/22/2014. (ts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HAROLD B OPPENHEIMER,
et al.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BRIAN LINT,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-2206-JTM-TJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant/Garnishee Argonaut Insurance Company’s
Motion to Have Judgment Debtors Regarded as Nominal Parties or, Alternatively, Motion to
Realign Parties (ECF No. 3). In its motion, Argonaut Insurance Company (“Argonaut”) asks the
Court to declare the Defendants/Judgment Debtors Brian Lint and Lint, Singleton & Heintz,
CPAs, PC to be nominal parties. In the alternative, Argonaut asks that Defendants/Judgment
Debtors be realigned as party plaintiffs. No party has opposed the motion. Although the parties’
lack of opposition may provide a basis for the Court to grant the motion,1 the Court addresses the
merits because the motion relates to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(h) obligates the Court to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte and to dismiss
the action if it is lacking.2 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
1
See D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b).
2
Mackovich v. Richardson, No. 13-3064-RDR, 2013 WL 2152191, at *3 (May 17, 2013);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
1
Facts
In this garnishment action, the Plaintiffs are Judgment Creditors in the underlying cause
of action filed in Johnson County, Kansas District Court (“the state court case”). Defendants
Brian Lint and Lint, Singleton & Heintz, CPAs, PC are Judgment Debtors in the state court case,
which arose out of their alleged failure to properly establish and maintain proper financial
controls over Judgment Creditors’ financial and accounting records and reports. As a result, an
employee of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor PushButtonMusic.com embezzled $371,888.00 from
Plaintiffs/ Judgment Creditors.
In approximately late January, 2014, the Judgment Creditors and Judgment Debtors
entered into a settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that the Judgment Creditors
would present evidence of liability ex parte and without notice to the Judgment Debtors. The
state court judge would then determine whether judgment should be entered and in what
amounts. Significantly, the Judgment Debtors consented to entry of judgment in the state court
case, and the Judgment Creditors agreed that they would not satisfy the judgment through a lien
of any sort, nor would they garnish, execute, or attach any of Judgment Debtors’ property.
Instead, the parties agreed that any judgment would be collected from and satisfied by the
liability insurance companies only, i.e. Argonaut and Defendant/Garnishee Philadelphia
Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). The settlement agreement also acknowledges
that the liability insurance companies had denied coverage in the case.
The state court judge entered the following judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs/Judgment
Creditors: (1) $605,785.00 to Harold Oppenheimer; (2) $115,000.00 to the Hal and Lloyd
2
Oppenheimer Irrevocable Trust; and (3) $21,000,000.00 to PushButtonMusic.com, LLC.3 On or
about March 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors moved for and obtained from the state
court an order of garnishment. Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors obtained service of process on
Argonaut and Philadelphia via certified sent on April 2, 2014, by the Kansas Commissioner of
Insurance.4 On May 2, 2014, Argonaut timely filed its Notice of Removal, which included
Philadelphia’s consent to removal.
Analysis
Although this lawsuit began in state court as the Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’
underlying tort action against the Judgment Debtors and was removed under the same case
number, it became a separate and distinct civil action for purposes of the federal removal statute5
when the garnishment was instituted.6 Argonaut and Philadelphia were not original parties;
Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors added them as Defendants when they converted the action to one
for garnishment.7 But the creation of a separate and distinct civil action does not mean that the
case is removable on the basis of diversity of citizenship unless complete diversity exists
between all plaintiffs and all defendants.8 Recognizing that, Argonaut filed the instant motion
because the current alignment of the parties does not satisfy the requirement of complete
3
See ECF No. 1-1 at 46-48.
4
ECF No. 1-1 at 23-24.
5
28 U.S.C.§ 1441(a).
6
See Smotherman v. Caswell, 755 F. Supp. 346, 348 (D. Kan. 1990).
7
See Second Amended Petition, filed January 28, 2014 in Johnson County, Kansas
District Court (ECF No. 4-1).
8
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3
diversity.9 Argonaut proposes to resolve the issue in one of two ways: (1) to regard
Defendants/Judgment Debtors as nominal parties whose consent is not required for removal and
whose citizenship is irrelevant; or (2) to realign the parties with Plaintiffs/ Judgment Creditors
aligned with Defendants/Judgment Debtors and against Defendants/Garnishees.
Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors agree that Defendants/Judgment Debtors are nominal parties and
assert that realignment is unnecessary because they do not expect Defendants/Judgment Debtors
to participate in this action.10
Case law suggests that both avenues together will satisfy subject matter jurisdiction. The
first issue to consider is alignment of the parties. “In garnishment actions, where a garnishee has
denied liability to the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor’s and judgment debtor’s interests
are aligned on the same side for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship.”11 Here, the
garnishees have denied that coverage exists under their insurance policies with the judgment
debtors. Accordingly, the Court will consider the interests of the Judgment Creditors and
Judgment Debtors to be aligned on the same side.
The next issue is whether Argonaut, a garnishee, may remove this action under Section
9
Argonaut asserts the parties’ citizenship to be as follows: (1) Plaintiffs/Judgment
creditors Harold B. Oppenheimer (Missouri), PushButtonMusic.com, LLC (Missouri), members
of the LLC (Missouri, Wyoming, New York, California, Texas, Oklahoma, and a state other than
Pennsylvania or Illinois), Hal and Lloyd Oppenheimer Irrevocable Trust (Missouri); (2)
Defendants/Judgment Debtors (Missouri); and (3) Defendants/ Garnishees Argonaut (Illinois)
and Philadelphia (Pennsylvania). No party disputes the assertion.
10
See Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Realign (ECF No. 6).
11
Smotherman v. Caswell, 755 F. Supp. 346, 348 (D. Kan. 1990).
4
1441.12 The settlement agreement in the underlying action has the effect of making the Judgment
Debtors nominal parties because they have no real interest in the present controversy. “In
determining the question of whether diversity of citizenship requisite to jurisdiction exists, a
court looks to the citizenship of the real parties in interest; and where there is complete diversity
between them, the presence of a nominal party with no real interest in the controversy will be
disregarded.”13 The Court thus disregards the Defendants/Judgment Debtors for purposes of
determining diversity and finds that all necessary Defendants have consented to removal.
Defendant/Garnishee Argonaut Insurance Company’s Motion to Have Judgment Debtors
Regarded as Nominal Parties or, Alternatively, Motion to Realign Parties (ECF No. 3) is hereby
GRANTED. In granting this motion, the Court finds it unnecessary to change the party
designation of the Judgment Debtors; it is sufficient merely to realign their interests.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion on the basis that Defendants/Judgment Debtors Brian
Lint and Lint, Singleton & Heintz, CPAs, PC are nominal parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 22nd day of July, 2014.
s/ Teresa J. James
Teresa J. James
United States Magistrate Judge
12
No party disputes the removal of this action, but the Court must be satisfied that subject
matter jurisdiction exists.
13
Hann v. City of Clinton, Okla., 131 F.2d 978, 981 (10th Cir. 1942). See also Dodson
Aviation, Inc. V. HLMP Aviation Corp., No. 08-4102-EFM, 2009 WL 1036123 (D. Kan. Feb. 12,
2009) (defendant with no legal interest in property that is subject of in rem action is nominal
party whose consent to removal is unnecessary).
5
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?