American Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm

20 Citing cases

  1. N.B. Parking Auth. v. Brother Jimmy's Franchising LLC

    Civil Action No. 20-1171 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2020)

    "Remand[, therefore,] is appropriate where one or more defendants do not join in removal." Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F. Supp. 2d 698, 699 (D.N.J. 2011). This rule of unanimity, however, does not apply in the following situations: "(1) when the nonjoining defendant is a nominal party; (2) when the defendant has been fraudulently joined; or (3) when a defendant has not been served when the removing defendants filed their notice of removal."

  2. Hoy v. Hoy

    1:22-cv-00425-NLH-EAP (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2022)

    A party may be deemed nominal under multiple analyses, including when it is โ€œwithout a real interest in the litigationโ€ or when it is not necessary or indispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. See Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F.Supp.2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2011) (collecting cases and quoting Bumberger, 952 F.2d at 767).

  3. Minardi Consulting, Inc. v. Anderson

    2:22-cv-00071 (BRM) (JSA) (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    ; see also Johnson, 724 F.3d at 359 (finding a defendant with โ€œno actual interest in the outcome of the litigationโ€ is a nominal party); Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F.Supp.2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. 2011) (observing courts have found โ€œa party who is neither necessary nor indispensable to join in the actionโ€ is a nominal party) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). โ€œBy contrast, a party who will be liable on an adverse judgment is not a nominal party.โ€

  4. Love v. Doe

    Civil Action No. 17-1036-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    However, the rule of unanimity does not apply: "(1) when the nonjoining defendant is a nominal party; (2) when the defendant has been fraudulently joined; or (3) when a defendant has not been served when the removing defendants filed their notice of removal." Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F. Supp. 2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. 2011) (citations omitted). A defendant is considered nominal if they are not connected to or have not engaged in the wrongdoing that is alleged in the complaint.

  5. Fenton v. Velocity Wellness Inst.

    Civil Action 23-22927 (RK) (JTQ) (D.N.J. Jul. 15, 2024)

    AbbVie correctly points out that it need not obtain the consent of the Velocity Defendants for removal of this action as AbbVie contends that the Velocity Defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat removal. (See NOR at ยถ 24 (citing Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F.Supp.2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. 2011) (explaining that the rule of unanimity does not apply when non-joining defendants have been fraudulently joined).)

  6. Sherrets v. Buechler

    Civil Action 22-cv-00551-PAB (D. Colo. Apr. 11, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The Tenth Circuit has not addressed whether there is an unanimity exception when the non-consenting defendant is in default; however, numerous courts have rejected such a proposition. See, e.g., Swanson v. JSR Trucking Inc., 2019 WL 2121364, at *2 (D.N.M. May 15, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2392909 (D.N.M. June 6, 2019); Grimes v. Amtec Corp., 2012 WL 3773397, at *9 (N.D. Ala. July 30, 2012) (โ€œnoting that removal statutes must be construed narrowly, along with the public policy favoring the setting aside of default judgments, the court finds that the lack of consent or an explanation in the notices of removal for the lack of consent is yet another reason to remand this actionโ€), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3772508 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 28, 2012); Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F.Supp.2d 698 (D.N.J. 2011) (rejecting the argument that a defaulting party is a nominal defendant and thus an exception to the rule and thus remanding because the case had been removed without the consent of the defaulting party); Off. Bldg., LLC v. CastleRock Sec., Inc., 2011 WL 1674963 (S.D. Fla. May 3, 2011) (holding that so long as the defaulted party remains part of the lawsuit, even after final default judgment was entered against it, failure to obtain its consent renders removal defective); Carr v. Mesquite Indep. Sch. Dist., 2004 WL 1335827, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2004) (remanding where the removing defendant failed to acquire the consent of party against whom plaintiff had taken an interlocutory default judgment); White v. Bombardier Corp., 313 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1304 (N.D. Fla. 2004) (โ€œThe Destiny defendants could have filed a consent to removal in the state court even after the entry of default without waiving any challenge to personal jurisdiction. . . . [T]he Bombardier defendants have made no show

  7. Gin Mel, LLC v. Ill. Union Ins. Co.

    Civil Action 21-11231 (MAS) (TJB) (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2022)

    Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F.Supp.2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. 2011) (quoting Mallalieu-Golder Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Exec. RiskIndem., Inc., 254 F.Supp.2d 521, 524-25 (M.D. Pa. 2003)). By contrast, "a party who will be liable on an adverse judgment is not a nominal party."

  8. Countryside Bank v. Sheikh

    CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-347-TLS-JEM (N.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2020)   Cited 1 times
    Reasoning that the citizenship of a non-diverse defendant against whom default judgment had been entered should be considered for diversity purposes

    In American Asset Finance, LLC v. Corea Firm, the plaintiff challenged removal on the basis that not all defendants had joined in the removal as required by 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446(b)(2)(A). 821 F. Supp. 2d 698, 699 (D.N.J. 2011). Prior to removal, the state court had entered a final default judgment against two defendants, and those defendants did not join in the removal.

  9. Twp. of Neptune v. Garden State Mun. Joint Ins. Fund

    Case No.: 3:18-cv-16448-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Sep. 26, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    While this formulation seems simple enough, there is some confusion about exactly what constitutes a "nominal party." See, e.g., Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F. Supp. 2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. 2011) (discussing the multiple tests courts have used to determine whether a party is "nominal"). Certain themes emerge from the caselaw: a party "named to satisfy state pleading rules, . . . joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, . . . or [who] otherwise ha[s] no control of, impact on, or stake in the controversy" is likely to be a nominal party.

  10. Glastein v. Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Sheild

    Civil Action No.: 18-9664-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2019)

    While this formulation seems simple enough, there is some confusion about exactly what constitutes a "nominal party." See, e.g., Am. Asset Fin., LLC v. Corea Firm, 821 F. Supp. 2d 698, 700 (D.N.J. 2011) (discussing the multiple tests courts have used to determine whether a party is "nominal"). Several themes emerge from the caselaw: a party "named to satisfy state pleading rules, . . . joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, . . . or [who] otherwise ha[s] no control of, impact on, or stake in the controversy" is likely to be a nominal party.