Summary
In Beeler, Judge McKinley explained why the Sixth Circuit's 1924 holding in Handley-Mack is not dispositive of this issue.
Summary of this case from Cronin v. Ky. Horse Park Found., Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00452-CRS
11-13-2015
ANDREW GEORGE BEELER, ET AL., PLAINTIFF S v. FRANCES BEELER AND L-M ASPHALT PARTNERS, LTD. D/B/A ATS CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, Andrew George Beeler, Charles Natale Beeler, and Edward Joseph Beeler (collectively, the "Beeler Brothers"), move the Court to remand this action to state court. This Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under the forum defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), and will remand this case to the Hardin Circuit Court for all further proceedings.
I.
Defendant, L-M Asphalt Partners, Ltd. d/b/a ATS Construction ("ATS"), filed a notice of removal from Hardin Circuit Court on June 4, 2015. This matter concerns various Kentucky state law claims surrounding real property in Hardin County, Kentucky. ATS, a Kentucky limited partnership, is a citizen of Kentucky as all of its members are citizens of the Commonwealth. See Notice of Removal ¶ 3, ECF No. 1. Defendant Frances Beeler is a citizen of Tennessee. See Def.'s Mem. Opp. Pl.'s Mot. Remand 7, ECF No. 8. The Beeler Brothers are citizens of California. See Notice of Removal ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.
II.
A defendant may generally remove a state court action if the action could have been brought in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This Court has original diversity jurisdiction where the suit is between "citizens of different states" and "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." Id. § 1332(a). However, under what is known as the forum defendant rule, "A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." Id. § 1441(b)(2).
"The question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, whether at the suggestion of the parties or sua sponte by the court." Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't Civ. Serv. Comm'n v. Overstreet, 115 F. App'x 813, 816 (6th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). While the Sixth Circuit has not addressed whether the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional or procedural issue, courts in this district treat the issue as jurisdictional. See Regions Bank v. Am. Justice Sch. of Law, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-134-M, 2009 WL 909548, at *6 (W.D. Ky. March 30, 2009) ("[T]he Court finds that the forum defendant rule is jurisdictional and that it has an obligation to raise the removal defect sua sponte ."); Nagarajan v. Ostruskza, No. 5:12-CV-00091-TBR, 2012 WL 5077691, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 18, 2012); Futrell v. Estate of Davidson, No. 1:12-CV-39, 2012 WL 3096521, at *2 (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2012).
III.
The Beeler Brothers have not raised the forum defendant rule, but, as the issue is jurisdictional, the Court raises the issue sua sponte. ATS has admitted that it is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Hardin Circuit Court, where the Beeler Brothers originally brought this case, is a state court in Kentucky. As the only potential basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter is upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the forum defendant rule applies. ATS is a properly joined and served defendant that resides in the forum state where the action was brought. Therefore, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.
IV.
Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court (DN 5) is GRANTED. The Court REMANDS the case to Commonwealth of Kentucky, Hardin Circuit Court, Division II for all further proceedings.
November 13, 2015
/s/
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge
United States District Court
cc: Counsel of Record
Hardin Circuit Court (15-CI-000645)