Boyer et al v. Hankook Tire Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Remand and denying as moot 4 Motion for Hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk's office shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on the Honorable Robert C. Ervin, North Carolina Senior Resident Superior Court Judge. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 1/22/2018. (nvc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 5:18-cv-00009-FDW-DCK
MARVIN L. BOYER, SR., individually and as )
Executor of the Estate of SANDRA T.
)
Boyer, deceased, et. al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HANKOOK TIRE CO., LTD.; and JOHN B. )
OSTWALT, JR., as Administrator of the )
Estate of RANDOLPH L. MORRISON,
)
Deceased;
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Remand (Doc.
No. 3) and Plaintiffs’ related Motion for a Hearing (Doc. No. 4). In short, Plaintiffs allege this
Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, which Defendants removed on the eve of trial in state court.
Defendants responded to the pending motions (Doc. No. 5). The Court has also reviewed
Defendants’ lengthy Notice of Remand (Doc. No. 1), which also contains the factual and legal
arguments upon which Defendants contend jurisdiction exists in this Court.
Accordingly,
Defendants have been afforded an opportunity to be heard on their position in opposition to the
relief requested by Plaintiffs’ instant motion. Further, the procedural posture of this matter
warrants immediate ruling by this Court.
In addition to reviewing all the pleadings in the instant case, the Court has also carefully
reviewed the pleadings and judicial rulings in the related matter of Boyer v. Hankook, 5:14-cv00165-RLV, which involved the same case as the case at bar. The Court finds particularly
1
important the order remanding this case to state court and rejecting Defendants’ asserted basis for
removal and jurisdiction in this Court. See Boyer v. Hankook, 5:14-cv-00165-RLV, Doc. No. 28
(January 30, 2015). In that order, the Honorable Richard L. Voorhees addressed the identical
issues presented now, albeit at a different procedural posture in the case. Here, Defendants reassert
the same basis for jurisdiction in this Court, arguing Plaintiffs are engaged in fraudulent joinder
and are acting in bad faith by retaining a defendant who defeats diversity jurisdiction in this Court.
Plaintiffs disagreed with Defendants in opposing the original removal (see Boyer v. Hankook,
5:14-cv-00165-RLV, Docs. Nos. 16, 17), and continue to assert at this stage in the litigation that
all named Defendants are appropriate parties, particularly since a portion of Defendant Hankook’s
defense appears to allege wrongdoing by the other Defendant. (Doc. No. 3).
For the reasons stated in Judge Voorhees’ decision in 5:14-cv-165 (Doc. No. 28), as well
as the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand in the instant case (Doc. No. 3), the Court
GRANTS the Emergency Motion for Remand. In sum, the Court rejects Defendants’ contentions
as to any bad faith or fraudulent joinder by Plaintiffs and concludes diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 does not exist in this case. Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, and
this case shall be remanded. In light of this ruling, as well as the fully-developed record contained
within the two dockets for this case (5:14-cv-165; 5:18-cv-9), the Court DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Hearing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (Doc. No. 3) is
GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Hearing (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED AS MOOT.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s office shall immediately serve a copy of this
Order on the Honorable Robert C. Ervin, North Carolina Senior Resident Superior Court Judge,
via email at an address to be provided to the Clerk of Court.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 22, 2018
1
In light of the public nature of this document, the Court declines to provide such email address in the contents of this
document.
3
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?