Fletcher v. Advo Systems, Inc.
Decision Date | 06 September 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85-CV-70599-DT.,85-CV-70599-DT. |
Citation | 616 F. Supp. 1511 |
Parties | James C. FLETCHER, Plaintiff, v. ADVO SYSTEMS, INC., a foreign corporation, Scott Murray, and Peter Carrao, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Thomas R. Paxton, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Ronald G. Acho, Livonia, Mich., for defendants.
La PLATA, District Judge.
On December 27, 1984, Plaintiff, James C. Fletcher, filed a four-count Complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court against a corporate Defendant and two individual Defendants.1 Therein, he essentially alleged that he was discharged, without just cause, from his position as a senior accounting executive at Advo Systems, Inc., in violation of a verbal employment contract.2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 7, 1985, claiming that one of the Defendants, Scott Murray, a Michigan resident, was included as a party to the lawsuit solely to defeat diversity of citizenship.
On April 29, 1985, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to the state court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), contending that the case was improvidently removed. Plaintiff argues that Murray, as Plaintiff's supervisor, is jointly liable for his wrongful discharge from Advo Systems, Inc.
According to his Complaint, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Advo, which is incorporated in the State of Delaware, as a salesman on April 9, 1984. Sometime prior to her termination on October 5, 1984, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of a senior accounting executive. Plaintiff averred that his contract was not terminable at will:
2. That in April of 1984, when the Plaintiff was hired, he was promised that he would have a good future with the Defendant company and that as long as he did his job, he would not be discharged. Further, based upon his employers expressed and/or implicit representations to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff formed a reasonable reliance that he would not be discharged except for just cause.3
In addition to naming his employer as a Defendant, Plaintiff included the firm's vice-president, Peter Carrao, a resident of Hartford, Connecticut, and Scott Murray, his immediate supervisor, in the lawsuit. In regard to Defendant Murray, Plaintiff did not specifically allege that his former supervisor committed a breach of the purported employment contract, but, in a general and conclusory fashion, stated the three Defendants jointly terminated him from his employment without just cause.
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff maintains that since both Defendant Murray and he are residents of Michigan, the case was improperly removed to federal court.4 Plaintiff argues that each of the Defendants was an "employer" of his, and, thus, each is individually liable for breaching the alleged contract of employment. In his Motion and supporting brief, Plaintiff emphatically denied that Defendant Murray was included in the lawsuit solely to defeat complete diversity of citizenship.
Opposing the Motion to Remand, Defendants, reasserting that Murray was named as a party defendant in order to thwart a removal from state court, attached the affidavits of Murray and Carrao to demonstrate that Murray neither was involved in nor knew of Plaintiff's termination:
While recognizing that a federal court is required to remand a case to state court where complete diversity of citizenship is lacking, Defendants argue that the improper joinder of a party defendant who does not have a real connection with the controversy permits a federal court to disregard the joinder and retain jurisdiction. Based on the affidavits of Carrao and Murray, Defendants assert that the Court may make a summary determination that, under state law, Defendant Murray was not involved in Plaintiff's termination and, hence, he was included in the action solely to defeat diversity of citizenship.
Where there are either plural plaintiffs or plural defendants, a federal court is devoid of diversity jurisdiction unless there is a diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants.5 Despite this precept, if a litigant is not a real party in interest, or is purely a nominal or formal party, his presence in the action may be disregarded in ascertaining jurisdiction.6
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 empowers a trial court to drop a litigant from the lawsuit on its own initiative if that party was misjoined.7 In Covington v. Indemnity Insurance Company of America,8 an employee sued a nonresident compensation insurance company in a state court for worker's compensation benefits. As a party defendant, he named his employer, B.W. Iley, on the basis that he did not carry compensation insurance. The insurance company removed the case to Federal Court, maintaining that the employer was misjoined. The District Court dismissed Iley from the action and denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the joinder of the employer as a defendant was improper:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alexander v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 92-1591
...call to the attention of the district court a case dealing with a situation analogous to the facts of this case, Fletcher v. Advo Systems, Inc., 616 F.Supp. 1511 (E.D.Mich.1985). In Fletcher, plaintiff James Fletcher filed suit in Michigan state court alleging wrongful termination and namin......
-
Gensplit Finance Corp. v. Foreign Credit Ins. Ass'n
... ... 239, 242 (N.D.Ind.1982); Molton, Allen & Williams, Inc. v. Harris, 436 F.Supp. 853, 857 (D.D.C.1977). In other words, a claim ... ...
-
Webb v. Just In Time, Inc.
...diversity jurisdiction unless there is a diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants."3Fletcher v. Advo Systems, Inc., 616 F.Supp. 1511, 1513 (E.D.Mich.1985). See also Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806); Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., ......
-
Young v. Bailey Corp., 95-CV-75823-DT.
...makes no specific allegations against either individual defendant with regard to racial discrimination."); Fletcher v. Advo Systems, Inc., 616 F.Supp. 1511, 1515 (E.D.Mich.1985) ("Plaintiff failed to set forth in his complaint the involvement, if any, Defendant Murray had in his hiring and ......