## Facts

- A corporation sued multiple defendants in Oklahoma state court to collect on a $15,215.59 promissory note executed by R. B. and Shelba Cowett, secured by a security interest in a two-thirds share of 130 acres of soybeans and a 1972 John Deere combine.
- After default, the soybeans were sold to Clarksville Grain and Elevator Co., Inc. for $10,948.27.
- Clarksville Grain paid by three checks: one to the one-third soybean owner (Lester Boden) and two to R. B. Cowett.
- Cowett endorsed a $4,394.90 check to Willie John Blair d/b/a B & B Automotive and converted a $2,903.94 check into a money order paid to John Deere Company.
- The complaint sought (1) judgment against the Cowetts for $15,215.59 on the note; (2) judgment against Clarksville Grain for $7,298.84 (the proceeds paid to Cowett); and, alternatively, (3) $4,394.90 from B & B Automotive and $2,903.94 from John Deere.
- John Deere alone removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction, asserting the other defendants did not join to avoid being seen as submitting to state-court jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing lack of unanimous consent and that the amount in controversy as to John Deere was only $2,903.94.

## Issues

1. Whether removal was procedurally defective because not all properly joined and served defendants joined in or consented to removal.
2. Whether diversity jurisdiction existed when the claim asserted against the removing defendant (John Deere) sought only $2,903.94.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- Removal was improvident because John Deere did not obtain consent of the other served defendants in a non-separable action.
- The amount in controversy, measured by the claim against John Deere, did not satisfy the diversity jurisdictional minimum.
- The court did not address the merits of the promissory note or secured transaction claims.

## Legal Principles

- Removal is purely statutory and removal statutes are strictly construed; statutory removal procedures must be followed.
- In multi-defendant cases, all properly joined and served defendants generally must join in or consent to removal absent a statutory exception.
- A served defendant’s reluctance to appear in state court does not excuse failure to join in a removal that requires unanimity.
- For diversity removal, the amount in controversy is evaluated by the amount actually sought from the removing defendant; a defendant cannot rely on a larger related transaction value to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold.
- A defect in removal procedure or failure to satisfy the invoked jurisdictional requirements requires remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

## Conclusion

The federal court remanded the case to state court because removal lacked required co-defendant consent and, independently, the claim against the removing defendant did not meet the diversity amount-in-controversy requirement.


McCurtain Cnty. Prod. Corp. v. Cowett, 482 F. Supp. 809 (E.D. Okla. 1978)