McCurtain County Production Corp. v. Cowett
482 F. Supp. 809, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17182 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a multi-defendant case to be properly removed to federal court on diversity grounds, all defendants must join in the removal petition, and where liability is several, the claim against each defendant must independently satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.
Facts:
- Defendants R. B. Cowett and Shelba Cowett executed a promissory note to Plaintiff, Farmers' Bank & Trust Co., for $15,215.59.
- The Cowetts secured the note by granting Plaintiff a security interest in a two-thirds share of 130 acres of soybeans and a 1972 John Deere combine.
- The Cowetts subsequently defaulted on the note.
- The soybeans which served as collateral were sold to Defendant Clarksville Grain and Elevator Co., Inc. (Clarksville Grain) for a total sum of $10,948.27.
- Clarksville Grain issued checks for the proceeds of the soybean sale to parties other than the Plaintiff.
- R. B. Cowett endorsed one of these checks, in the amount of $4,394.90, to B & B Automotive Company.
- R. B. Cowett converted another check, in the amount of $2,903.94, into a money order and gave it to John Deere Company.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, Farmers' Bank & Trust Co., filed suit against R. B. Cowett, Shelba Cowett, Clarksville Grain, Willie John Blair (d/b/a B & B Automotive), and John Deere Company in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma, a state trial court.
- Defendant John Deere Company, acting alone, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, a federal trial court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the case back to the state court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single defendant in a multi-defendant case have the right to remove a case to federal court when the other defendants do not join the removal petition and the plaintiff's claim against the removing defendant is for an amount less than the statutory jurisdictional minimum?
Opinions:
Majority - Daugherty, Chief Judge
No. The removal of this case was improper because it suffers from both a procedural defect and a failure to meet the jurisdictional criteria. First, the general rule for removal requires that all defendants in a multi-defendant case must join in or consent to the removal petition. As the other defendants did not join John Deere's petition and no exceptions to this rule apply, the removal procedure was defective. Second, the case fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff's claim against John Deere is for only $2,903.94, well below the statutory minimum of $10,000. The court rejected John Deere's argument that the claims could be aggregated, reasoning that the liability of the Cowetts is separate and distinct from the liabilities of the other defendants. Therefore, each claim must individually satisfy the jurisdictional amount, and as the claim against John Deere does not, the federal court lacks jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces two fundamental and strictly construed principles of federal removal jurisdiction. First, it upholds the 'rule of unanimity,' requiring all served defendants to consent to removal, thereby preventing a single defendant from unilaterally moving a case to federal court. Second, it clarifies that when defendants' liabilities are several and distinct, their individual liabilities cannot be aggregated to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The ruling underscores the principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and that any doubts about removal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remanding the case to state court.
