Alexander v. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY
| Citation | 221 F. Supp. 897 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1803-1805. |
| Parties | Sidney Dale ALEXANDER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant (two cases). Sidney Dale ALEXANDER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Foust & Lyons, by Max W. Foust and Russell D. Jacobson, Kansas City, Mo., Lloyd Alvey, Kansas City, Kan., for plaintiffs.
Ewing, Ewing, Ewing, Carter & Wight, by Lynn M. Ewing, Jr., Nevada, Mo., McReynolds, Flanigan & Flanigan, by John H. Flanigan, Jr., Carthage, Mo., for defendant
By an order previously entered in each of these causes on June 26, 1963, defendant's request for leave to amend its petition for removal to allege its principal place of business was denied and each of these causes was ordered remanded to the Circuit Court of Vernon County, Missouri. The issue of defendant's right to amend its petition for removal after expiration of the twenty day period within which to file said petition was not resolved since the order was based upon the allegations of proposed amended petition for removal that the plaintiffs were citizens of Missouri and that the defendant was a Missouri corporation.
After the entry of the order of June 26, 1963, counsel for the defendant notified the Court by letter that the allegation that the defendant was a Missouri corporation was a result of inadvertence, and a misunderstanding by the secretary who typed the proposed amended petition and that, in fact, the defendant was a Delaware corporation.
The Court then entered its order of July 13, 1963, vacating and setting aside the order of June 26, 1963, which order had remanded these causes to the Circuit Court of Vernon County, Missouri, and granting defendant leave to submit a corrected proposed amended petition for removal. The defendant has submitted such an amended petition showing the requisite diversity of citizenship.
The question now before the Court is whether or not the defendant should be granted leave to file an amended petition for removal after the expiration of the twenty day period for filing a removal petition in order to allege the defendant's principal place of business. There is a sharp conflict of authorities on this question.
Leave to amend was granted in the following cases: Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. v. Robbins Coal Co. (C.A.5) 288 F.2d 349, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 875, 82 S.Ct. 122, 7 L.Ed.2d 77; Goforth v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D.N.C.) 213 F.Supp. 595; Park v. Hopkins (S.D.Ind.) 179 F.Supp. 671. Leave to amend was denied in the following cases: Carlton Properties, Inc. v. Crescent City Leasing Corp. (E.D.Pa.) 212 F.Supp. 370; Young v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (W.D.Ky.) 209 F.Supp. 953; Eubanks v. Krispy Kreme Donut Co. (E.D.Tenn.) 208 F. Supp. 479; Evans-Hailey Co. v. Crane Co. (M.D.Tenn.) 207 F.Supp. 193; F & L Drug Corp. v. American Central Ins. Co. (D.Conn.) 200 F.Supp. 718; Browne v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (N.D.Ill.) 168 F.Supp. 796.
The strict rule against allowing amendment found in some of the cases is out of line with the general liberal concepts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Horn v. Western Elec. Co.
...222, 228 (W.D.Mo.1963); William Kalivas Construction v. Vent Control of Kansas City, supra, at 1010; and Alexander v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, 221 F.Supp. 897, 898 (W.D.Mo.1963). Similarly, courts have strictly interpreted the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, against removal. Young......
-
Roberts v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
...to amend denied, unless exceptional circumstances exist." William Kalivas, 325 F.Supp. at 1010 (quoting Alexander v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 221 F.Supp. 897 (W.D.Mo. 1963)). At the time William Kalivas was decided, strict construction of removal petitions and a reluctance to permit ......
-
State of Missouri ex rel. Drane v. Adams
...in this Court. See Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. American Guarantee & L. Ins. Co. (W.D.Mo.) 220 F.Supp. 222; Alexander v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. Co. (W. D.Mo.) 221 F.Supp. 897. If this case were permitted to proceed to trial in this Court, the defendant would not be precluded from chall......
-
Chapman v. Ozark Forest Products, Inc., Civ. A. No. 15253-3.
...have been filed, the allegations of fact relating to jurisdiction may not now be supplemented or amended. Alexander v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. Co. (W.D.Mo.) 221 F. Supp. 897; Wright, Federal Courts, § 40, p. 123, n. 32. The Alexander case collects the conflicting authorities on this iss......