Matteson v. Bresette
Decision Date | 24 February 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 15653-2.,15653-2. |
Citation | 250 F. Supp. 646 |
Parties | Ila Janice MATTESON, Plaintiff, v. Robert BRESETTE et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Stanford A. Zeldin, of Quinn, Peebles & Hickman, K. I. Grissinger, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Robert J. Sanders, of Strubinger & MacElhern, Thos. E. Deacy, of Deacy & Deacy, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.
Plaintiff's petition was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, against an individual and a corporate defendant on July 30, 1965. That petition alleged the residence of all of the parties, but no mention is made of their citizenship.
On August 20, 1965, the corporate defendant filed a petition for removal with this court as provided in § 1446 Title 28 United States Code. That petition states that this is a controversy between parties of different states and that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $10,000 and thus the Court would have had original jurisdiction under § 1332 Title 28 United States Code. No service had been obtained on the individual defendant as of that time.
All allegations of citizenship in the removal petition are set out in the present tense, i. e.:
We can not find any allegation of citizenship of any party in any pleading, petition, or motion indicating their status as of the time of the commencement of the action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. That such diversity must be alleged to have existed both at the time of the commencement of the action as well as at the time of removal was made clear in Cline v. Belt, 43 F. Supp. 538 (E.D.Ky.1942) in which a motion to permit amendment of the removal petition was denied and the case was remanded for this very defect in the removal petition. In Accord; Roseberry v. Fredell, 174 F.Supp. 937 (E.D.Ky.1959); Washington—E. Wash. Joint A. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., 180 F.Supp. 15 (W. D.Pa.1960); Smith v. Dealers Transit, Inc., 239 F.Supp. 605 (E.D.Tenn.1965). For an excellent summary of the policy of strict construction against federal jurisdiction, see the opinion of Becker, J., in Young Spring and Wire Corp. v. American Guarantee &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walsh v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Daveler (D.C.Del.1958), 169 F.Supp. 125; Bradford v. Mitchell Brothers Truck Lines (N.D.Calif.1963), 217 F.Supp. 525; Matteson v. Bresette (W.D.Mo.1966), 250 F.Supp. 646; Alvey v. Sears, Roebuck & Company (W.D.Mo.1958), 162 F.Supp. 786; Yarbrough v. Blake (W.D.Ark. 1963), 212 F.Supp. 133; C......
-
Kerstetter v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
...time the complaint was filed in state court. Garza v. Midland National Insurance Co., 256 F.Supp. 12 (S.D.Fla.1966); Matteson v. Bressette, 250 F.Supp. 646 (W.D.Mo.1966). The defendant has not carried its burden of proving that removal is proper. Accordingly, an order will be entered granti......
-
Roberts v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
...by inference. William Kalivas Const. Co. v. Vent Control of Kansas City, 325 F.Supp. 1008, 1009 (W.D.Mo.1970) (citing Matteson v. Bresette, 250 F.Supp. 646 (W.D.Mo.1966)). "A corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has i......
-
Garza v. Midland National Insurance Company
...v. Nichols, 130 U.S. 230, 9 S.Ct. 518, 32 L. Ed. 914 (1889); Bell v. Whittenton, 250 F.Supp. 550 (W.D.Mo.1966); Matteson v. Bresette, 250 F.Supp. 646 (W.D.Mo. 1966). In the instant case paragraph five of the petition for removal "5. That said action is a civil action of which this Court has......