Lucas v. TIG Insurance Company et al, No. 1:2006cv00189 - Document 6 (N.D. Ind. 2006)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER, signed by Judge Roger B Cosbey on 5/12/06, regarding def'ts Notice of Removal; if pltf seeks to remand case due to an alleged violation of the "forum defendant" rule, or if he seeks a remand on any other basis, he is to file a motion to remand withthis Court on or before 5/30/06(lrm) Modified on 5/12/2006 (lrm, ).

Download PDF
Lucas v. TIG Insurance Company et al Doc. 6 case 1:06-cv-00189-TLS-RBC document 6 filed 05/12/2006 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION ANTHONY W. LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 1:06-CV-00189 OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a Notice of Removal (Docket # 2) filed by Defendant Specialty Benefits, Inc. ( Specialty Benefits ), removing this case from the Allen County, Indiana, Circuit Court to this Court. However, under the forum defendant rule (also referred to as the no-local-defendant limitation in some jurisdictions) of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), a case is removable on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); see Hurley v. Motor Coach Indus., Inc., 222 F.3d 377, 378-80 (7th Cir. 2000); Lashcon, Inc. v. Butler, 340 F. Supp. 2d 932, 935 (C.D. Ill. 2004); WRS Motion Picture & Video Lab. v. Post Modern Edit, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 876, 877-78 (C.D. Cal. 1999); see generally Spencer v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of California, 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004); Korea Exch. Bank, New York Branch v. Trackwise Sales Corp., 66 F.3d 46, 50 (3rd Cir. 1995); Lamotte v. Roundy s, Inc., 27 F.3d 314, 315-16 (7th Cir. 1994). As this case was removed by Specialty Benefits on the grounds of diversity, but Specialty Benefits and Defendant K&K Insurance Dockets.Justia.com case 1:06-cv-00189-TLS-RBC document 6 filed 05/12/2006 page 2 of 2 Company are each Indiana corporations with principal places of business located in Fort Wayne, Indiana, (see Notice of Removal ¶¶ 5, 8), the removal was seemingly in violation of Section 1441(b) s forum defendant rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Hurley, 222 F.3d at 378-80; Lashcon, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 935; WRS Motion Picture, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 877-78. Accordingly, if Lucas seeks to remand the case due to an alleged violation of the forum defendant rule, or if he seeks a remand on any other basis, he is to file a motion to remand with this Court on or before May 30, 3006. SO ORDERED. Enter for this 12th day of May, 2006. /S/ Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.