Schindler v. Wabash R. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 362.,362. |
| Citation | 84 F. Supp. 319 |
| Parties | SCHINDLER v. WABASH R. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Alexander, Ausmus & Harris and Warren D. Welliver of Columbia, Missouri, for plaintiff.
Clark, Boggs, Peterson & Becker (Will Nelson), of Columbia, Missouri, for defendants.
Plaintiff originally instituted this suit in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, against the Wabash Railroad Company, John Doe and Richard Roe. It was alleged that defendant Wabash Railroad Company was a non-resident corporation, and that John Doe and Richard Roe were residents of Missouri. The complaint alleged a joint cause of action.
At the time the petition was filed in the State Court, counsel for the plaintiff instructed the clerk of the court not to issue summons for John Doe and Richard Roe. Thereafter the defendant Wabash Railroad Company filed its petition and bond for removal and the cause was removed to this court. Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand.
In a Memorandum Opinion written by Judge Reeves, Schindler v. Wabash Railroad Co. et al., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 685, 686, plaintiff's motion to remand was overruled and the cause remained in this court. In his opinion Judge Reeves said: "In view of the foregoing facts, therefore, the corporate removing defendant was the only party to the controversy at the time the petition for removal was filed and since it was a controversy solely between a resident and non-resident defendant the right of removal was complete." (Authorities cited to sustain this principle.)
Thereafter, by leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this court, joining as defendants, L. Briscoe and E. W. Weber, engineer and fireman on the engine of the defendant railroad at the time of the alleged injury to the plaintiff. As in the original petition, a joint cause of action was alleged against the non-resident defendant and the resident defendants.
Plaintiff has now filed a second motion to remand on the ground that by joining the resident defendants there is no longer diversity of citizenship and therefore this court no longer has jurisdiction. It is the contention of the non-resident defendant, the Wabash Railroad Company, that jurisdiction having been once acquired by this court, it cannot be divested of that jurisdiction by the filing of an amended complaint making resident defendants parties to the action and thus destroying diversity of citizenship.
Almost the identical question was before Judge Reeves in Galbraith v. Bond Stores, Inc., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 319. There the action was brought by a resident plaintiff in the state court against a non-resident defendant alone. The case was then removed to the Federal court by the non-resident defendant, and thereafter by leave of court and by consent of the defendant, leave was granted to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint making a resident defendant a party. Judge Reeves sustained a motion to remand the case to the state court. The only difference between that case and this one is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Fibreboard Products
...Railways Express Agency, Inc., D.C.W.D.Mo., 63 F.Supp. 5; Cummings v. Riley Stoker Corp., D.C.W.D.Mo., 6 F.R.D. 5; Schindler v. Wabash Ry. Co., D.C.W.D.Mo., 84 F.Supp. 319; Rowland v. Sellers, D.C. E.D.Tenn., 111 F.Supp. 5; and Heintz v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.S.D.Cal., 112 F.Supp. 199. To......
-
Wallace v. Knapp-Monarch Company, 15439.
...Co. v. McClelland, 8 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 187; Galbraith v. Bond Stores, Inc., D.C.W.D.Mo.1945, 4 F.R.D. 319; Schindler v. Wabash R. Co., D.C.W.D. Mo.1949, 84 F.Supp. 319; Rowland v. Sellers, D.C.E.D.Tenn.1953, 111 F.Supp. 5, is that here the leave to amend was denied while in the cited case......
-
Beglane v. Switzer
...and were, of course, not served with any process. The same litigation was later before Judge Duncan. His opinion in Schindler v. Wabash Rr. Co. (W.D.Mo.1949), 84 F.Supp. 319 (to which the Court's attention was not directed by counsel) reveals that the plaintiff filed an amended complaint an......
-
Harper Financial Corp. v. Hanson Oil Corp.
...Heintz v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 112 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Calif.1953), Rowland v. Sellers, 111 F.Supp. 5 (E.D.Tenn.1953), Schindler v. Wabash R. Co., 84 F.Supp. 319 (W.D.Mo.1949), Galbraith v. Bond Stores, 4 F.R.D. 319 The result reached might be different in this action if the new defendants whos......