Pettit v. ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY
Decision Date | 03 June 1974 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 73-277. |
Citation | 377 F. Supp. 108 |
Parties | W. O. PETTIT, Plaintiff, v. ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY, a corporation, and Texas International Petroleum Corp., a corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
Richard P. Cornish, Newell E. Wright, Jr., McAlester, Okl., for plaintiff.
George L. Verity, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Arkansas Louisiana Gas.
Max H. Lawrence, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Texas International.
ORDER REMANDING CASE
Plaintiff sued the above Defendants in the District Court in and for Pittsburg County, Oklahoma requesting declaratory relief that his interest in a gas well is unencumbered as to Defendants and that he recover from Defendants the sum of $60,000.00 as well as $500,000.00 as punitive damages.
According to the records of the District Court in and for Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, of which the Court takes judicial notice as they were not included in the Removal Petition, the Defendant Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company (Arkla) was served with summons on September 26, 1973 by serving its designated Service Agent and the Defendant Texas International Petroleum Corp. (Texas) was served with summons on September 27, 1973 by serving an officer of the corporation.
On October 17, 1973 Defendant Arkla removed the case to this Court on the grounds of diverse citizenship and the required jurisdictional amount being present and that the case involved a substantial Federal question. The Defendant Texas did not join in said Removal Petition of Defendant Arkla or file a Removal Petition of its own within the prescribed time for removal.
Plaintiff has not moved to remand the case to State Court but as it is the duty of the Court to at all times look to its jurisdiction, the Court from examining the files and records of the case concludes that the case was improvidently removed to this Court and should be remanded sua sponte to the State District Court from which it was removed.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides:
The authorities clearly indicate that this Court should sua sponte remand a case to State Court if its jurisdiction is not proper. In Becker v. Angle, 165 F.2d 140 (Tenth Cir. 1947) it is stated:
The statutory provision referred to in the above case is now codified in 28 U. S.C.A. § 1447(c) which provides:
The right to removal is statutory and before a party may avail himself of such right, he must comply with the statutory provisions. Edwards v. E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 183 F.2d 165 (Fifth Cir. 1950). Among the statutory requirements to be complied with, is that all defendants must join in the removal. This Court so held in the case of Dyer v. Burns, 257 F.Supp. 268 (W.D.Okl.1966) wherein it is stated:
"Unless a separate and independent claim or cause of action exists, it is necessary that all defendants join in the petition for removal."
In the early case of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900) it was held that in a joint action against several defendants in which no separate or independent controversy is presented, all the parties must join in the petition for removal. Also see numerous cases under Note 873 in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441.
The removal of a cause, either for diversity of citizenship or because a Federal question is involved, must be sought by all defendants except where there is a separate or independent controversy wholly between citizens of different states. Sheets v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corporation, 115 F.2d 880 (Fifth Cir. 1940) aff'd 313 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Town of Fairfax, Okl. v. Ashbrook, 3 F.Supp. 345 (N.D.Okl.1933).
In the case at hand, an examination of the Plaintiff's Petition does not disclose a separate and independent claim or cause of action against the removing Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief (or to quiet title) to his fractional working interest in the gas well against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCURTAIN CTY. PRODUCTION CORP. v. Cowett
...P. P. Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance Co., 395 F.2d 546 (Seventh Cir. 1968); Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 377 F.Supp. 108 (E.D. Okl.1974). There are exceptions to this requirement. When a separate and independent claim that is removable under 28 U.S.C. § ......
-
Rembrant, Inc. v. Phillips Const. Co., Inc.
...325, 326 (5th Cir. 1970); Reiken v. Nationwide Leisure Corporation, 458 F.Supp. 179, 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 377 F.Supp. 108, 109 (E.D.Okl.1974). See generally 14 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3731 (1976). One exception......
-
Hafer v. Dist. Attorney
...remanded if at any time it appears the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction”); Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 377 F.Supp. 108, 109 (E.D. Okla. 1974) (district court should sua sponte remand case to state court if its jurisdiction is not proper). Here, however, rema......