UNITED FOUND. LIFE INS. CO. OF ILL. v. BLACKHAWK HOLD. CORP.

Decision Date09 March 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-C-676.,71-C-676.
Citation341 F. Supp. 483
PartiesUNITED FOUNDERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. BLACKHAWK HOLDING CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

Korf, Pfeil & Graves, by John P. Graves, Jr., Elkhorn, Wis., for plaintiff.

Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, Milwaukee, Wis., Mitchell, Russell & Kelly, by William H. Kelly, Jr., George J. Haddad, Chicago, Ill., and John M. Roncone, Springfield, Ill., of counsel, for Blackhawk.

Lehman & Seymour, by Paul E. Kremer, Milton and Lieberman, Elkhorn, Wis., for other defendants.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

This action was begun in a state court and was removed to this court upon the petition of the defendant Blackhawk Holding Corp. ("Blackhawk"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441; the other litigants have now moved that the case be remanded to the state court.

The complaint alleges that Blackhawk gave the plaintiff a mortgage on certain real estate in Walworth County, Wisconsin, to secure the payment of a note in the amount of $100,000. The complaint also alleges that Blackhawk subsequently gave the defendants L. G. Milton and Fred Lieberman a second mortgage on the same Walworth County property in the amount of $250,000. The plaintiff avers that Blackhawk is in default in its payments on the notes secured by the first mortgage, and it seeks foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises.

Shortly after the complaint was filed in the state court, and before the action was removed to this court, the defendants Milton and Lieberman filed a cross-complaint against Blackhawk; the cross-complaint seeks a determination of the amount owed the cross-complainants by Blackhawk and payment to them of any sums that remain after the plaintiff's claims first are satisfied.

Both the plaintiff and Blackhawk are Illinois corporations, and the defendants Milton and Lieberman are citizens of Ohio. However, in its petition for removal, Blackhawk asserted that this court has diversity jurisdiction over the removed action because Blackhawk "has no defense to the complaint and there are no issues between . . . it . . . and United Founders Life Insurance Company . . . ." Diversity of citizenship exists with respect to the parties to the cross-action, Blackhawk contends, and if any dispute exists between it and the plaintiff, such dispute can be severed and remanded to the state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The plaintiff and the defendants Milton and Lieberman have moved to remand; in addition, the plaintiffs seeks, in the alternative, severance of its original action from the controversy among the defendants.

The issue before this court is whether, in the absence of diversity of citizenship between a plaintiff and one or more defendants, a cross-claim involving defendants among whom there is diversity can provide a basis for removal. "Since all defendants must ordinarily join in the removal petition, a cross-claim defendant seeking to remove under the general removal statute must do so, if at all, under § 1441(c), on the basis of a separate and independent claim." 1A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.167 9, at 1046 (1965).

Section 1441(c) provides:

"Whenever a separate and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Aaron-Lincoln Mercury
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 29, 1983
    ...F.Supp. 1162, 1164-65 (S.D.N.Y.1981); White v. Hughes, 409 F.Supp. 1005, 1007 (W.D.Tenn. 1975); United Founders Life Ins. Co. v. Black-hawk Holding Corp., 341 F.Supp. 483, 485 (E.D. Wis.1972); Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anchor Construction Co., 326 F.Supp. 245, 248-49 (E.D.Pa.1971); ......
  • Folts v. City of Richmond
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • November 5, 1979
    ...§ 1441(c), properly construed, applies only to claims brought by the plaintiff or plaintiffs. United Founders Life Insurance Co. v. Blackhawk Holding Corp., 341 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Wis.1972). Second, the term "defendant" as used in § 1441 is limited to plaintiff's defendant. Fiblenski v. Hirsc......
  • White v. Hughes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • November 24, 1975
    ...broadly state that a cross-action is not a separate and independent claim within § 1441(c). United Founders Life Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Blackhawk Holding Corp., 341 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Wis.1972); Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Swain, 331 F.Supp. 337 (W.D.Okl. 1971); Verschell v. Fireman's Fund Ins.......
  • United States v. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • March 17, 1972
    ... ... the language of count 1 can allegations be found specifying the place or facility from which the ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT