Alabama Electric Company, Inc. of Dothan et al v. Dow Corning Alabama, Inc. et al, No. 1:2015cv00096 - Document 16 (M.D. Ala. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: It is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that plaintiffs motion to remand (doc. no. 9 ) is granted and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama. I t is further ORDERED that any and all other pending motions are left for disposition by the state court after remand. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. This case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) Copy mailed to Clerk, Houston County, Alabama as directed.(dmn, )

Download PDF
Alabama Electric Company, Inc. of Dothan et al v. Dow Corning Alabama, Inc. et al Doc. 16 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. OF DOTHAN and NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. DOW CORNING ALABAMA, INC., et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15cv96-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER This lawsuit, which was removed from state to federal court based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, is plaintiffs’ motion to remand. now before the court on “In a removal case alleging fraudulent joinder, the removing party has the burden of proving that plaintiff can either: (1) establish a there cause is no possibility of action against the the resident defendant; or (2) the plaintiff has fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts to bring the resident defendant into state court. ... The burden of the removing party is a ‘heavy one.’” Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Dockets.Justia.com Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The court agrees with plaintiffs that this case should be remanded to state court because there has been neither fraudulent joinder, Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440 (11th Cir. 1983); Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989), nor fraudulent misjoinder, Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996). *** Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that plaintiffs’ motion to remand (doc. no. 9) is granted and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama. It is further ORDERED that any and all other pending motions are left for disposition by the state court after remand. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate 2 steps to effect the remand. This case is closed in this court. DONE, this the 28th day of September, 2015. /s/ Myron H. Thompson___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.