IRG Kettering I LLC v. Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND THIS CASE TO STATE COURT (Doc. No. #15 ); (2) REMANDING THE CASE TO THE CIVIL DIVISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO; AND (3) TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 9/25/2024. (acw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
IRG KETTERING I LLC,
Plaintiff

Case No. 3:24-cv-217

vs.
TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE
OPERATING COMPANY INC.,

District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND THIS
CASE TO STATE COURT (Doc. No. 15); (2) REMANDING THE CASE TO THE CIVIL
DIVISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
OHIO; AND (3) TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff initiated this case in the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas,
Montgomery County, Ohio. Doc. No. 1 at PageID 2. Defendant removed the case to this Court,
asserting diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Plaintiff, an LLC, filed its supplemental disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 7.1(a)(2) in this court and reported that one of its sub-members is an LLC that is a trust
administered by a Delaware corporation. Doc. No. 13. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with
a principal place of business in Michigan. Doc. No. 10.
The case is presently before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to state
court. Doc. No. 15. In its motion, Plaintiff acknowledges, “this Court therefore does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation . . . this Court should remand this case to the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.” Doc. No. 15 at PageID 399. Defendant in
response to Plaintiff’s motion to remand stated it “does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to remand”

because “[b]ased on the recent disclosures made by Plaintiff about its members and sub-members,
which information was not known and could not have been known to Tenneco at the time that it
removed this lawsuit to this Court, it appears that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction”
Doc. No. 18.
The Court therefore (1) GRANTS as unopposed Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to
state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) REMANDS this case to the Civil Division
of the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Ohio; and (3) TERMINATES the case on
the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 25, 2024

s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

2