BOARD OF ED., ETC. v. Travelers Indem. Co., Civ. No. B-80-0047.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. B-80-0047. |
| Citation | 486 F. Supp. 129 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND v. The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Edward S. Digges, LaPlata, Md., E. Stephen Derby, E. Fremont Magee and Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
B. Conway Taylor, Jr., B. Ford Davis, Paul W. Madden, and Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore, Md., William Hart and Hart & Hume, New York City, for defendant.
This is an action on a surety bond executed in connection with a contract to build a school in Charles County, Maryland. The defendant surety removed the case to this court and has sought to consolidate it with the related contract action, which is assigned to the undersigned. The plaintiff has petitioned for remand to the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland, on the ground that the defendant has not properly alleged the citizenship of the parties. This court will deny the petition for remand.
It appears from close examination of the original pleading filed in county court that there exists the requisite diversity of citizenship between the parties. Exhibit A to the declaration, which is incorporated by reference, plainly states that the defendant is incorporated in Connecticut, and gives the defendant's business address in New York. Additionally, the caption of the declaration, as required by Maryland Rule of Procedure 301 e, gives the address of the surety in New York. Service was made on the defendant by serving the Insurance Commissioner of Maryland, pursuant to Annot. Code of Md., Art. 48A § 57 and Md. Rule of Procedure 106 § f(1). Notwithstanding the obviousness of the citizenship of the parties on the face of the pleadings the plaintiff is technically correct that the removal petition did not allege the jurisdictional facts in detail.
Accordingly, the defendant has moved to amend its petition to state with particularity the facts that at the time of the original petition, the plaintiff was a citizen (and political subdivision) of the State of Maryland and that the defendant was a citizen of a state other than Maryland, being incorporated and having its principal place of business outside of this State. The plaintiff urges this court not to exercise its discretion in favor of permitting the amendment, arguing that to do so would allow the defendant to circumvent the thirty-day time limit for petitioning for removal. See, e. g., Van Horn v. Western Electric Co., 424 F.Supp. 920, 925 (E.D.Mich.1977).
The defendant has correctly noted, however, that substantial authority would permit amendment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1653, which provides that "defective allegations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castle v. Laurel Creek Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:94-0162.
...A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3733 (1985)." See Board of Ed. of Charles County, Maryland v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 486 F.Supp. 129, 130 (D.Md.1980); cf. Belasco v. W.K.P. Wilson & Sons, Inc., 833 F.2d 277, 282 (11th Cir.1987) (amendment will be permitted after the t......
-
Camacho v. Cove Trader, Inc.
...(D.Me.1981); Harper v. National Flood Insurers Association, 494 F.Supp. 234, 235-36 (M.D.Pa.1980); Board of Education v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 486 F.Supp. 129, 130 (D.Md.1980); Powell v. Sterling Drugs, Inc., 455 F.Supp. 369, 370 (E.D.Mich.1978); McGuigan v. Roberts, 170 F.Supp. 372, 373......
-
DeVona v. City of Providence Through Napolitano
... ... Civ. A. No. 86-0592 L ... United States District ... 800, 818-820, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1247-1248, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). There, the Supreme Court indicated ... In Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d ... pleadings, discovery material, court filings, etc., and twice tax the time of most of the parties ... ...
-
Molnar-Szilasi v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
...is a "technical defect," and that Sears should be allowed to amend its notice.1 See, e.g., Board of Education of Charles County, Maryland v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 486 F.Supp. 129 (D.Md.1980)(allowing amendment when the removal petition did not properly allege the jurisdictional facts in ......