Strandholm v. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
| Decision Date | 01 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 63-394. |
| Parties | Lloyd STRANDHOLM, by his Guardian ad Litem, Ingrid Strandholm, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Philip A. Levin, Portland, Or., for plaintiff.
Robert P. Jones, Portland, Or., for defendant.
I have for determination a legal problem, rather unique in nature, raised by plaintiff's motion to remand1 to the Circuit Court of the State or Oregon for Multnomah County.
The action was originally commenced against five defendants, including defendants, James & Honey, individuals doing business as a partnership, who were citizens and residents of the State of Oregon. The cause proceeded to trial against said defendants in said Court, in which proceeding the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on which Judgment was entered. Subsequently, plaintiff moved for a new trial, which motion was granted as to General Construction Company, but denied as to defendants, James & Honey. No appeal was taken from the Judgment in favor of James & Honey, but General took an appeal from the Judgment granting a new trial, naming the defendants, James & Honey, as respondents. On January 4, 1962, the Supreme Court of Oregon dismissed said cause as to defendants, James & Honey, and notice of that ruling was given to attorneys for General Construction Company by letter of the same date and received by said attorneys on January 5, 1962. Although the order of dismissal of the appeal as to defendants, James & Honey, was dated the 4th day of January, 1962, the mandate of the Supreme Court to the said Circuit Court did not reach the Clerk of the Circuit Court for filing until August 2, 1962.
The notice of removal, bond on removal and other necessary documents were filed in this Court on August 15, 1963.
(1) Attention is called to the fact that the removal from the case of the resident defendants, James & Honey, was not a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff, but was by reason of the order of the Supreme Court of Oregon. Accordingly, the change in status being involuntary, the case is not removable. Moore's Federal Practice, 1(A), 2d Edition, pp. 1243-1244. American Car & Foundry Co. v. Kettlehake, 236 U.S. 311, 35 S.Ct. 355, 59 L.Ed. 594.
(2) There is another ground on which the motion to remand must be allowed. The action of the Supreme Court of Oregon in dismissing the appeal on January 4, 1962...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valverde v. Maxum Cas. Ins. Co.
...99 U.S. 539, 539, 25 L.Ed. 355 (1878).49 Id. at 540.50 Id.51 Id. at 541.52 Id. at 544.53 Id. at 546.54 See Strandholm v. Gen. Constr. Co. , 222 F. Supp. 12 (D. Or. 1963) (holding, under facts similar to those in Yulee , that the voluntary-involuntary rule precluded federal jurisdiction), ci......
-
Weems v. Louis Dreyfus Corporation
...courts have continued to apply the voluntary-involuntary rule without relying upon the legislative history. See Strandholm v. General Constr. Co., 222 F.Supp. 12 (D.Ore.1963); Stone v. Foster, 163 F. Supp. 298 (W.D.Ark.1958); Cudney v. Mid-Continent Airlines, Inc., 98 F.Supp. 403 8 For a di......
-
Ennis v. Queen Insurance Company of America
...to the federal courts. See Squibb-Mathieson Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 238 F.Supp. 598 (S.D. N.Y.1965); Strandholm v. Gen. Const. Co., 222 F.Supp. 12 (D.Ore.1963); Viles v. Sharp, 248 F.Supp. 1019 (W.D.Mo. 1965); Stone v. Foster, 163 F.Supp. 298 (W.D.Ark.1958); 1 A Moore, Fed.Pract......
-
Maine Employers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Yates Ins. Agency
...transferring venue that resulted in complete diversity was not due to any voluntary act of the plaintiff); Strandholm v. General Constr. Co., 222 F.Supp. 12, 13 (D.Or.1963) (holding that dismissal from the case of resident defendants was not a voluntary act by plaintiff for purposes of § 14......