Weindel v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 11] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/31/2012. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
No. 4:12-CV-1778 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to remand to the Circuit Court of the City
of St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant does not oppose the motion. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s
motion will be granted, and this action will be remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
On August 6, 2012, plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri, naming two defendants: Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) and American Family
Mutual Insurance Company (“American Family”). Both defendants were served with the summons
and the petition on September 5, 2012.
On October 2, 2012, defendant American Family filed a notice of removal. The notice of
removal was filed within thirty days of service. The other defendant in the case, Allstate, did not seek
to remove the case within thirty days of service, and did not consent to the removal. In fact, after
American Family filed its notice of removal, defendant Allstate filed an answer to the petition in the
“Removal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and governed by § 1446. Where there are
multiple defendants, all must join in a petition to remove within thirty days of service.” Thorn v.
Amalgamated Transit Union, 305 F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing the general rule of unanimity
in case involving Title VII and state law claims removed to federal court).
As plaintiff correctly points out, nothing in the record suggests defendant Allstate consented
to removal. (Pl. Mem. at 1). In response to the motion to remand, defendant American Family
acknowledges the defect in its removal, stating, “[I]t appears that remand is, indeed, appropriate and
Plaintiff’s motion is well taken.” (Resp. at 1).
The right to remove is jointly held by all defendants. The failure of one defendant to join in
the notice precludes removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Because defendant Allstate did not
join in the removal, the case will be remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 11]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
An appropriate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of October, 2012.
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?