Crompton v. Park Ward Motors, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 October 1979 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-2724. |
Citation | 477 F. Supp. 699 |
Parties | Robert H. CROMPTON, III v. PARK WARD MOTORS, INC., B & N Leasing Corp., Network Leasing Co., Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Wayde P. Seidenstricker, York, Pa., for plaintiff.
R. J. Hoelscher, Philadelphia, Pa., for Park Ward Motors et al.
Plaintiff instituted this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to rescind a contract which he and defendant Park Ward Motors, Inc. (Park Ward) signed for the lease of a new Rolls Royce sedan.1 The parties allegedly agreed that plaintiff would receive a nine thousand dollar credit for the trade-in of his Mercedes Benz. Plaintiff complains that defendants did not credit his account as agreed and that they induced him to trade in his car and to lease the Rolls Royce by fraudulently misrepresenting the actual terms of the deal. Alleging that the written contract does not embody their actual agreement, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, rescission of the contract or reformation thereof to reflect a credit for the trade-in value of plaintiff's Mercedes Benz. Plaintiff served defendant Park Ward on June 26, 1979, one day after serving B & N and Network. One month later defendant Park Ward removed the action to this Court. On August 2, 1979, more than thirty days after service and receipt of plaintiff's complaint, B & N and Network filed joinders to the removal petition. Now moving to remand, plaintiff argues that B & N's and Network's failure to join the removal petition within the thirty-day period prescribed by statute destroys federal jurisdiction.2
This requirement cannot be extended by consent of the parties or order of the court. Typh, Inc. v. Typhoon Fence of Pennsylvania, Inc., 461 F.Supp. 994, 996 (E.D.Pa.1978), Perrin v. Walker, 385 F.Supp. 945, 948 (E.D. Ill.1974), Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, 365 F.Supp. 1403, 1406 (E.D.Pa. 1973). All defendants must join in or consent to removal. Chicago, R. I. & P. Railway Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900), Tri-Cities Newspaper, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressman and Assistants Local 349, 427 F.2d 325, 327 (5th Cir. 1970), P. P. Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance Co., 395 F.2d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1968), Bradley v. Maryland Casualty Co., 382 F.2d 415, 419 (8th Cir. 1967), Glenmede Trust Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 384 F.Supp. 423, 429 (E.D.Pa.1974), Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, 365 F.Supp. at 1406, Resident Advisory Board v. Tate, 329 F.Supp. 427, 432 (E.D.Pa.1971). It follows that all defendants must join within the thirty-day period directed by § 1446(b). DiCesare-Engler Productions, Inc. v. Mainman Ltd., 421 F.Supp. 116, 119-20 (W.D.Pa.1976) () (emphasis added), Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, supra ( ), Crawford v. Fargo Manufacturing Co., 341 F.Supp. 762 (M.D. Fla.1972) ( ), Norwich Realty Corp. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 218 F.Supp. 484 (D.Conn.1963) ( ). To hold otherwise would elide this requirement from the statute altogether, for the purpose of § 1446(b) is "to provide a uniform and definite time for a defendant to remove an action". Haun v. Retail Credit Co., 420 F.Supp. 859, 863 (W.D.Pa.1976) (emphasis added). See also Sun Oil of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, 365 F.Supp. at 1407.3 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to remand will be granted.
1 The lease contract was arranged through defendant B & N Leasing Corporation (B & N), which later assigned it to defendant Network Leasing Company, Inc. (Network).
2 The parties agree that Park Ward filed a timely petition for removal. Likewise, defendants do not contend that they are only nominal defendants or not real parties in interest.
Park Ward does assert due diligence in attempting to learn the identity of co-defendants' counsel. However,
the only circumstances offered in condonation of their failure to comply with that condition is that the petitioning defendants were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ogletree v. Barnes
...F.Supp. 9, 10 (E.D.Pa.1983); Balestrieri v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., 544 F.Supp. 528, 529 (E.D.Pa. 1982); Crompton v. Park Ward Motors, Inc., 477 F.Supp. 699, 701 (E.D.Pa.1979). This unanimity requirement advances "the congressional purpose of giving deference to a plaintiff's choice of a......
-
Mechanical Rubber & Supply v. American Saw & Mfg.
...complaint, (footnote omitted), the requirement that all defendants "join" in the petition is satisfied. See, Crompton v. Park Ward Motors, Inc., 477 F.Supp. 699, 701 (E.D.Pa. 1979) ("all defendants must join in or consent to removal" within 30 day period); Sicinski v. Reliance Funding Corp.......
-
Collins v. American Red Cross
...§ 3731 (2d ed.1985). See Adams v. Aero Services International, Inc., 657 F.Supp. 519, 521 (E.D.Va.1987); Crompton v. Park Ward Motors, Inc., 477 F.Supp. 699, 701 (E.D.Pa.1979). The thirty-day limitation is mandatory and the court is without discretion to expand it. Fellhauer v. City of Gene......
-
Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority v. BUSHKILL-LOWER
...No. 80-2585 (3d Cir. June 30, 1981). 2 Unlike the usual contention that defendant removed the action too late, see Crompton v. Park Ward Motors, 477 F.Supp. 699 (E.D.Pa. 1979), the Authority argues that the regional director removed the matter too 3 Actually, the history of this litigation ......