Ciotti v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 13 April 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-0731. |
Citation | 511 F. Supp. 647 |
Parties | Henry L. CIOTTI v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Kenneth E. Sands, Jr., Reading, Pa., for plaintiff.
Barbara F. Markham, Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
A corporation's principal place of business as well as its state of incorporation determine its citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (). See also Fleming v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 508 F.Supp. 917 (E.D.Pa.1981), Braucher v. Buhler Brothers, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D.Pa.1980), Jagielski v. Package Machine Corp., 489 F.Supp. 232 (E.D.Pa.1980), Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp., 484 F.Supp. 406 (E.D.Pa.1980). Plaintiff admits that he is a citizen of Pennsylvania and that defendant is incorporated under the laws of the state of Connecticut, where defendant also maintains its principal place of business. Therefore, defendant, which has removed the action, has dispelled the presumption against diversity jurisdiction, Curzi v. Turioscy, 507 F.Supp. 807 (E.D.Pa. 1981), Lang v. Windsor Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co., 493 F.Supp. 97 (E.D.Pa.1980), Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 488 F.Supp. 502 (E.D.Pa.1980), and established the completeness of diversity. Lang v. Windsor Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co., 487 F.Supp. 1303 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff'd, 636 F.2d 1209 (3d Cir. 1981), Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp., supra. Maintaining a residence, office or place of business in a particular location will not affect diversity. Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298 (3d Cir. 1972), Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. American Coastal Lines, Inc., 222 F.Supp. 923 (S.D.N. Y.1963).
Federal rules of civil procedure apply to cases removed from state court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c). See Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 89 F.R.D. 63 (E.D.Pa.1981). By filing the petition for removal and bond and providing notice to all parties, defendant effected removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(e), and ceased the state court proceedings. Pennsylvania National Bank & Trust Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 87 F.R.D. 152 (E.D.Pa.1980). Plaintiff's objections thereto properly take the form of a motion to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. v. Berks Title Insurance Co., 508 F.Supp. 921 (E.D.Pa.1981). Plaintiff's "objections to defendant's petition for removal" will be so construed and denied. See Arment v. Commonwealth National Bank, 505 F.Supp. 911 (E.D.Pa.1981); Carey v. Beans, 500 F.Supp. 580 (E.D.Pa.1980); Ruppert v. Lehigh County, 496 F.Supp. 954 (E.D.Pa.1980).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority v. BUSHKILL-LOWER
...court, notwithstanding the protection from local bias which federal courts afford "foreign" defendants. 12 See Ciotti v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 511 F.Supp. 647 (E.D.Pa.1981) and Pennsylvania National Bank & Trust Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 87 F.R.D. 152 (E.D.Pa. 13 To remand ......
-
La Maina v. Brannon
...not effective until all the steps required by the federal statute have been taken." Id. at 550 citing cases. In Ciotti v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 511 F.Supp. 647 (E.D.Pa.1981), Judge Troutmann stated "by filing the petition for removal and bond which is no longer necessary and providing noti......
-
Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Welton Becket Associates
...Rules of Civil Procedure as if it had originally been commenced in this court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c); Ciotti v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 511 F.Supp. 647, 648 (E.D.Pa.1981). Rule 12(e) provides as (e) Motion for More Definite Statement. If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is pe......
-
Hampton Properties v. Eresian, 891942
... ... of a motion to remand in federal court. Ciotti v. Aetna Cas ... & Sur. Co., 511 F.Supp. 647, 648 (E.D.Pa. 1981); State ... ...