Facts
- Tameshia Sutton, the daughter of Angelia Jenkins, was killed in an automobile accident.
- Jenkins, a citizen of Georgia, filed suit in Georgia state court against Elbert LeSueur Grier (the driver), McKenzie Tank Lines (the vehicle owner), and National Union Fire Insurance Co. (the insurer).
- Jenkins, Grier, and McKenzie were Georgia citizens; National was not a Georgia citizen, so complete diversity did not exist when the case was filed.
- The state court ruled that venue was improper as to Grier and McKenzie in the county where the action was pending.
- As a result of the venue ruling, the state court transferred Jenkins’s claims against Grier and McKenzie to another Georgia court and dismissed Grier and McKenzie as parties from the case remaining in the original court.
- After the venue order left National as the only defendant in the original action, National removed that action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Jenkins moved to remand, arguing that removal was barred by the voluntary–involuntary rule because the resident defendants were removed from the action by court order rather than by her voluntary dismissal.
Issues
- Whether a case that was not removable when filed becomes removable on diversity grounds after a state-court venue order dismisses and transfers the nondiverse defendants from the action, leaving only a diverse defendant.
- Whether the voluntary–involuntary rule bars removal when diversity arises from an involuntary state-court ruling, and if not, whether a “final” state-court order can permit removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
Decision
- The court denied Jenkins’s motion to remand.
- The court held that removal was proper because, after the state court’s venue ruling, National was the sole defendant in the removed action and complete diversity existed at the time of removal.
- The court concluded that the voluntary–involuntary rule did not require remand where the state court’s venue ruling was treated as final for the action that National removed.
Legal Principles
- Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants at the time of removal.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant may remove within the statutory time after receiving an order or other paper from which it can first be ascertained that the case has become removable.
- The voluntary–involuntary rule generally prevents removal when a case becomes removable only because a state court involuntarily dismisses a nondiverse defendant; the rule aims to avoid removal based on changes that could later be undone, which would destabilize jurisdiction.
- Courts may allow removal after an involuntary state-court ruling when the ruling that eliminates the nondiverse defendants is final as to the removed action and does not realistically allow the nondiverse defendants to return to that action.
Conclusion
Because the state court’s venue order dismissed and transferred the nondiverse Georgia defendants out of the case pending in the original court, National became the only remaining defendant in that action. With complete diversity then present and the venue ruling treated as final for the removed action, the federal court held that the voluntary–involuntary rule did not bar removal and denied Jenkins’s motion to remand.