Gauert v. Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. et al
ORDER denying 8 motion to remand. Signed on 5/1/2017 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Law Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
GERDAU AMERISTEEL U.S. INC.,
MOSES ARTIS, JR., and
Case No. 4:16-cv-01091-DGK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
This suit concerns alleged violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act by Defendants
Gerdau Ameristeel U.S., Inc. (“Gerdau”), Charles Renner (“Renner”), and Moses Artis, Jr.
(“Artis”). Plaintiff Christy Gauert (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri, on August 25, 2016. On October 10, 2016, Defendant Renner removed this
case on behalf of all defendants, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. On October 25,
2016, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Renner.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff asserts remand is warranted because: (1) the voluntary dismissal of Defendant
Renner renders the notice of removal ineffective; and (2) Defendant Artis did not timely consent
to removal. These arguments are without merit.
The voluntary dismissal of Defendant Renner did not render the notice of
removal ineffective, and the Court maintains jurisdiction over this matter.
First, Plaintiff argues this matter must be remanded due to the voluntary dismissal of the
removing defendant, Charles Renner, on October 25, 2016. She argues that several district
courts, including the Eastern District of Missouri, have held that remand may be appropriate
upon either a change in the position of the parties or a claims change if no substantial
commitment of judicial resources has yet occurred. See, e.g., Rotermund v. United States Steel
Corp., 346 F. Supp. 69, 76 (E.D. Mo. 1972).
A case falls within the court’s original diversity jurisdiction if the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is also well established that “the court’s jurisdiction is measured either at
the time an action is commenced, or more pertinent to this case, at the time of removal.”
Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 2011). Jurisdiction is determined
at the time of removal, even though later events may have removed from the case the facts on
which jurisdiction was predicated, including the dismissal of a defendant. Hargis v. Access
Capital Funding, L.L.C., 674 F.3d 783, 789 (8th Cir. 2012).
Here, it is undisputed that at the time of removal: (1) Plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri at
the time the cause of action arose, see Pl.’s Pet. ¶ 6.; (2) Gerdau was a Florida corporation
registered and authorized to conduct business in the State of Missouri, id. ¶ 7; (3) Defendants
Renner, Artis, and Richards were residents of the State of Kansas, id. ¶¶ 8, 10; Polly Decl. ¶ 10
(Doc. 1-2); and (4) the amount in controversy was believed in good faith to exceed $75,000, see
id. ¶¶ 5, 90. Under these facts, diversity jurisdiction still exists. The dismissal of Charles
Renner as a defendant does not destroy diversity in this case, and his dismissal is immaterial
because removal was appropriate at the time of the motion.
Accordingly, the Court maintains jurisdiction over this matter.
The consent requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 was timely satisfied.
Plaintiff next argues that removal was improper because Defendant Renner and his
counsel failed to obtain the consent of Defendant Artis. On October 5, 2016, Attorney Barrett
represented Artis and stated that he would not consent to removal, but anticipated he would soon
cease to represent Artis. On the day of the filing, October 10, 2016, Barrett stated he was
anticipating a substitution of counsel for Artis, but had not yet seen it. Given these facts,
Plaintiff argues Littler Mendelson did not represent Artis, nor have the authority to consent on
his behalf, when counsel filed for removal on October 10th.
In civil actions removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), all defendants properly joined and
served must join in or consent to the removal of the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). The
Eighth Circuit has advised non-removing defendants to sign the notice of removal or file a timely
consent should they wish to join in or consent to removal. Christiansen v. W. Branch Cmty. Sch.
Dist., 674 F.3d 927, 933 (8th Cir. 2012). The unanimity of consent requirement may also be
satisfied if a defendant, or some person with authority to act on the defendant’s behalf, consents
to removal and the removal is timely. Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir.
2008). An attorney has the authority to act on a client’s behalf in consenting to removal. See id.
Even where a removing defendant does not expressly manifest consent initially, he may later file
an indication of his consent, mitigating any concerns regarding his codefendant’s authority to
have consented on his behalf. Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182,
1188 (8th Cir. 2015).
Here, Artis filed a declaration on November 11, 2016, stating under penalty of perjury
that he was represented by Littler on the date of removal and had authorized his consent. The
Court thus finds Littler had the authority to act on Artis’s behalf at the time of filing, and the
consent requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 was timely satisfied.
The Court finds that diversity jurisdiction exists and Artis’s consent was properly and
timely manifested. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s
request for attorney’s fees is also DENIED. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132,
141 (2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under [28 U.S.C.]
§ 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1, 2017
/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?