Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., No. 89-1929
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | ALAN E. NORRIS |
| Citation | 959 F.2d 628 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1929 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1992 |
| Parties | 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,362 Shirley FRANZEL; and Fred Franzel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KERR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Page 628
v.
KERR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Sixth Circuit.
Decided March 26, 1992.
Allen J. Counard (argued and briefed), Trenton, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Donald A. Van Suilichem (argued and briefed), Van Suilichem & Brown, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for defendant-appellee.
Before: KEITH and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; and JOHNSTONE, District Judge. *
Page 629
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, Shirley and Fred Franzel, appeal a judgment in favor of defendant, Kerr Manufacturing Company, on various employment related claims. Because the overriding issue on appeal concerns the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district court after removal of the claims from a state court, an issue which was not raised before the trial court and has not been directly addressed in our circuit, we discuss it below. All other issues raised by the appeal are addressed in an unpublished appendix to this opinion.
I.
According to both the unverified complaint filed in state court and defendant's verified petition for removal, plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Michigan. The complaint alleges that defendant is a "New Jersey corporation ... doing business in ... Michigan." The petition for removal, however, says defendant "is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in ... New Jersey and ... is not a citizen of ... Michigan." The complaint names "Kerr/Division of Sybron Corporation" as the defendant, while the petition for removal refers to "Kerr Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Sybron Corporation, a Delaware corporation." Neither document alludes to whether Kerr is a separately incorporated subsidiary.
Shirley Franzel accepted a position as a sales representative with defendant in 1981, and was promoted to district manager two years later. While she was considered an excellent salesperson, defendant terminated her employment in 1986, due to what the company considered deficiencies in her managerial skills.
In response to the termination, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court, alleging wrongful discharge, negligent evaluation, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and loss of consortium. Upon a timely petition by defendant, the action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on the basis of diversity of citizenship, and plaintiffs did not seek to remand the case to state court.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendant on the negligent evaluation, sex discrimination, and harassment claims. Following a twenty-one day trial, the jury decided all the remaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adland v. Russ, No. 00-6139.
...491 210 (1998); Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 & n. 1 (6th Cir. 1992). "[R]ipeness doctrine is drawn both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential......
-
Tyree v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 97-2148-M1/V.
...take note of want of jurisdiction in the district court even though neither party has raised the point."); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that "subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party or even sua sponte by the court ......
-
Norris v. Schotten, No. 96-3553
...Ry. Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1084, 114 S.Ct. 1835, 128 L.Ed.2d 463 (1994); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 & n. 1 (6th Cir.1992). 6 Section 1 of Article III states that: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supre......
-
M.L. Johnson Family Props., LLC v. Jewell, Civil No. 16–6–ART
...own limits, dismissing a case sua sponte when it notices a jurisdictional problem before the parties do. See Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co. , 959 F.2d 628, 629–30 (6th Cir. 1992). When exhaustion is not a jurisdictional issue, though, the court has no independent duty to run a background check on......
-
Adland v. Russ, No. 00-6139.
...491 210 (1998); Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 & n. 1 (6th Cir. 1992). "[R]ipeness doctrine is drawn both from Article III limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for ......
-
Tyree v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 97-2148-M1/V.
...must take note of want of jurisdiction in the district court even though neither party has raised the point."); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that "subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party or even sua sponte by the court itsel......
-
Norris v. Schotten, No. 96-3553
...Ry. Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1084, 114 S.Ct. 1835, 128 L.Ed.2d 463 (1994); Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 & n. 1 (6th Cir.1992). 6 Section 1 of Article III states that: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme C......
-
M.L. Johnson Family Props., LLC v. Jewell, Civil No. 16–6–ART
...own limits, dismissing a case sua sponte when it notices a jurisdictional problem before the parties do. See Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co. , 959 F.2d 628, 629–30 (6th Cir. 1992). When exhaustion is not a jurisdictional issue, though, the court has no independent duty to run a background check on......