Van Slambrouck v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis.
Citation | 354 F. Supp. 366 |
Decision Date | 15 February 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 39197. |
Parties | Dawn VAN SLAMBROUCK and Clayton J. Van Slambrouck, Plaintiffs, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, a foreign corporation, and the Black Bros. Co., a foreign corporation, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Michael V. Marston, Marston & Marston, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.
John A. Kruse, Harvey, Kruse & Westen, Detroit, Mich., for defendant Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin.
Michael J. Kelly, Kelly & Tatham, Birmingham, Mich., for defendant Black Bros. Co.
Plaintiffs, Dawn and Clayton J. Van Slambrouck, bring a motion to remand this cause to state court.
This suit was filed on October 24, 1972, in Wayne County Circuit Court. On November 10, 1972, defendant Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin Employers filed a petition to remove the case to this court. The other defendant, Black Brothers Company Black Bros., did not join in the removal petition until December 12, 1972. On December 13, 1972, plaintiffs brought this motion to remand saying the failure of both defendants to timely file is a defect fatal to removal.
Employers resists remand, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). That section provides:
"Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction."
Employers says that plaintiffs' claims against it and Black Bros. are "separate and independent," and since the claim against Black Bros. is not now removable, this court may remove "the entire case . . . and . . . determine all issues therein."
In approaching the instant matter this court takes note of some fundamental principles of the law of removal. Removal is a purely statutory right which is to be strictly construed in view of the congressional policy against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L. Ed. 1214 (1941); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 38 S.Ct. 237, 62 L.Ed. 713 (1918). Section 1441(c) was the result of a 1948 amendment aimed at abridging the right of removal. American Fire & Casualty v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951).
It is hornbook law that all defendants must join in a petition for removal. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900).
There are two reasons why Employers may not invoke § 1441(c) to perfect removal. First, Congress did not intend the "non-removable" exception of § 1441(c) to apply where a claim was "non-removable" solely because of one defendant's failure to comply with the removal statute and timely join a removal petition. Second, plaintiffs' complaint does not present "separate and independent" claims as against the two defendants.
The issue of "non-removability" within the meaning of § 1441(c) has been considered by a number of courts. In Universal Surety Co. v. Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 157 F.Supp. 606 (D.S.D.1958), plaintiff sued two defendants in a declaratory judgment action. Only one defendant brought a timely petition for removal, and plaintiff sought remand. Defendants resisted, citing § 1441(c). The court said:
(610).
Accord: P. P. Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Ins. Co., 395 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1968); Nowell v. Nowell, 272 F.Supp. 298 (D.Conn.1967).
This court has found only one case contrary to these authorities: Port of New York Authority v. Eastern Airlines, 259 F.Supp. 142 (S.D.N....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spillers v. Tillman, Civil Action No. 5:96-cv-157(Br)(S).
...Pacific Railway Company v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248, 20 S.Ct. 854, 855, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900); Van Slambrouck v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, 354 F.Supp. 366, 368 (E.D.Mich.1973); Charles Dowd Box Company v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08, 82 S.Ct. 519, 522-23, 7 L.Ed.2d 48......
-
Strange v. Arkansas-Oklahoma Gas Corp.
...also, Her Majesty Industrial, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 379 F.Supp. 658 (D.C.S.C.1974); Van Slambrouck v. Employer's Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis., 354 F.Supp. 366 (D.C. Mich.1973); Herrmann v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 308 F.Supp. 1094 (D.C.N.Y.1968); Winters v. Hale, 296 F.Supp. 1......
-
McManus v. Glassman's Wynnefield, Inc.
...Railway Company v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248, 20 S.Ct. 854, 855, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900); Van Slambrouck v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, 354 F.Supp. 366, 368 (E.D. Mich.1973); Dowd Box Company v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08, 82 S.Ct. 519, 522-23, 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962); Testa......
-
Hess v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
...plaintiff. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 178 U.S. at 248, 20 S.Ct. at 855; Van Slambrouck v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 354 F.Supp. 366, 368 (E.D. Mich.1973). Third, and perhaps most important, is the legislative and judicial policy that state courts are con......