Zervas et al v. Pella Corporation et al
Filing
19
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's motion to remand, re: 14 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 12/11/2015. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Christopher J. Zervas, et al.,
Case No. 3:15 cv 1839
Plaintiffs
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pella Corporation, et al.,
Defendants
In August 2015, Plaintiffs Christopher Zervas, Leslie Zervas and Express Services, Inc. filed
suit in the Lucas County Common Pleas Court against Pella Corporation and Ryder Transportation
Management. The Defendants jointly removed this action on the basis of complete diversity under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1).
This matter is now before me on Christopher and Leslie Zervas’ motion to remand (Doc.
No. 14), as well as the Defendants’ opposition (Doc. Nos. 15 and 16). For the reasons that follow, I
find the Plaintiffs’ motion is not well taken.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1), this Court has original jurisdiction in civil actions “where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between–citizens of different States.”
In this instance, Plaintiffs contend a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because they believe
the Defendants “erroneously asserted that Plaintiff Express Services, Inc. is an Ohio corporation.”
(Doc. No. 14, pp. 2-3). Plaintiffs attach copies of filings with the Ohio Secretary of State, which
reflect Express Services to be a foreign corporation of the State of Colorado. Plaintiffs argue there
is a lack of complete diversity amongst the Plaintiffs and request remand back to the state court.
For purposes of removal jurisdiction, the court looks to the case at the time it was filed in
state court and again at the time of removal. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 118
S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof on
this issue. See Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 471 (6th Cir. 1999) citing Steel Company v. Citizens for a
Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1016-17, 140 L.Ed.2d 219 (1998).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), a corporation is a citizen of every state and foreign state in which
it is incorporated and of the state or foreign state where its principal place of business is located.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court, “Since Stawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806),
we have read the statutory formulation “between . . . citizens of different States” to require complete
diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct.
467, 136 L.Ed.2d 436 (1996).” Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 80, 89 (2005)
In their notice of removal, the Defendants state that “Plaintiff Express Services, Inc. is an
Ohio corporation and self-insured employer under the workers’ compensation laws of the state of
Ohio.” (Doc. No. 1 at p. 3). However, even if Express Services is a Colorado corporation, as
asserted by the Plaintiff, there is still complete diversity between the parties.
As correctly noted by
Defendants, complete diversity is defined as “no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same
state.” Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing United States
Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1089 (6th Cir. 1992)).
Here, the Zervas’ are Ohio residents and Express Services appears to be a citizen of Ohio
and Colorado. The Defendants are domiciled in Iowa (Pella Windows & Doors, Inc.), Florida and
Michigan (Ryder Transportation Management and Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.). As there is
2
complete diversity between the plaintiffs and defendants, the dictates of the statute are met and I
find there is complete diversity of citizenship under § 1332.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for remand (Doc. No. 14) is denied.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
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?