## Facts

- Plaintiffs, co-partners doing business as Barnes Rural Gas and Plumbing, filed two actions in Missouri state court.
- In the first action, plaintiffs sought to enforce a materialmen’s lien, alleging that Parker and Cron were jointly indebted for materials supplied in connection with a building project for Kraft Foods.
- Parker removed the lien action to federal court on diversity grounds without Cron joining the removal petition.
- In the second action, plaintiffs sued only Parker for breach of contract seeking about $2,100 in damages (below the then-jurisdictional minimum for diversity).
- After removal, Parker filed a counterclaim for approximately $4,800 and argued the counterclaim should be considered in determining the amount in controversy.
- Although plaintiffs did not move to remand, the district court examined removal jurisdiction on its own initiative.

## Issues

1. In a state-court action alleging joint liability against multiple defendants, is removal proper when not all defendants join the removal petition?
2. In a removed diversity case, can the defendant’s counterclaim be used to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement when the plaintiff’s complaint seeks less than the jurisdictional minimum?

## Decision

- The court sua sponte remanded both cases to state court for lack of removal jurisdiction.
- In the joint-liability lien action, removal was improper because all defendants did not join in the petition for removal.
- In the breach-of-contract action, removal was improper because the amount in controversy is determined from the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendant’s counterclaim could not be used to reach the jurisdictional threshold.

## Legal Principles

- When a complaint asserts a single joint cause of action against multiple defendants, all properly joined and served defendants must join in removal; absent such joinder, remand is required.
- A federal court must remand a removed case if it determines removal was improvident or outside federal jurisdiction, even without a motion to remand.
- For diversity removal, the amount in controversy is measured by the plaintiff’s claim as stated in the complaint at the time of removal; a defendant’s counterclaim does not create or cure the jurisdictional amount for removal.

## Conclusion

The court held that removal failed in the joint-liability action because unanimity among defendants was required, and removal failed in the single-defendant action because a counterclaim could not be used to satisfy the diversity amount in controversy; both actions were remanded to state court.


Barnes v. Parker, 126 F. Supp. 649 (W.D. Mo. 1954)