Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 26808.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 26808.,26808. |
| Parties | OREGON EGG PRODUCERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darroll L. ANDREW, d/b/a Andrew Egg Ranch, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David F. Berger (argued), William L. Dwyer, of Culp, Dwyer, Guterson & Grader, Seattle, Wash., Bernard E. Newby, Vancouver, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Paul R. Duden (argued), Stephen R. Frank, of Tooze, Powers, Kerr, Tooze & Peterson, Portland, Ore., Read & Church, Vancouver, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUNIWAY, HUFSTEDLER, and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
This is an interlocutory appeal testing the validity of an order granting Oregon Egg Producers' ("Producers") petition to remove its action from a state court to a federal district court in Washington. Producers initiated the suit by filing a complaint against Andrew to recover upon an account stated. Andrew counterclaimed for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of Producers' discriminatory pricing of eggs. Producers thereupon sought removal to the federal court on the theory that Andrew's counterclaim raised a federal question. The cause was removed, and Andrew appealed. While the appeal was pending, Andrew filed an antitrust suit against Producers in the district court.
We assume that Producers correctly asserts that its action could have been initiated in the federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction, and we further assume, arguendo, that Andrew could have removed the action to the federal court because Andrew's counterclaim stated a claim within federal jurisdiction. Neither assumption aids producers. A plaintiff who commences his action in a state court cannot effectuate removal to a federal court even if he could have originated the action in a federal court and even if a counterclaim is thereafter filed that states a claim cognizable in a federal court. (28 U.S. C. § 1441; Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets (1941) 313 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214.)
Producers alternatively argues that we should remand the present case to the district court, ordering its consolidation with the pending antitrust case pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 42 applies to cases that are properly before the same court. Because this case is not properly before the district court in Washington, Rule 42 cannot be invoked.
The order is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to remand the case to the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuomo v. Long Island Lighting Co.
...is denied, since Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., authorizes consolidation only of cases "pending before the court." See, Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382 (9th Cir.1972); Spirt v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n, 93 F.R.D. 627 (S.D.N.Y.1982); Senco of Florida, Inc. v. Clark, 473 F.Supp......
-
Lops v. Lops
...statute does not have even this limited right of removal. See 843 F.2d at 1261 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). 45. See Or. Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir.1972) ("A plaintiff who commences his action in a state court cannot effectuate removal to a federal court even if he cou......
-
Concha v. London
...although on at least one occasion we have reviewed such an order without stating the basis for our jurisdiction. Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir.1972); see also 1A Moore's Federal Practice p 0.169[2.-3] n. The question in the case before us, then, is whether the d......
-
Dodd v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.
...unlawful detainer action, it cannot consolidate this action with the related wrongful foreclosure action. See Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir. 1972) (noting that federal courts may only consolidate actions which are properly before the court); see also U.S. Bank N......