Robertson v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al, No. 2:2011cv01111 - Document 13 (M.D. Ala. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER directing that the plaintiff's 12 motion to remand is set for submission, without oral argument, on January 27, 2012, with the defendants to file any opposition brief by January 20, 2012, and the plaintiff to reply by January 27, 2012, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/9/12. (scn, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION NANCY O. ROBERTSON, in her official capacity as Probate Judge of Barbour County, Alabama, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MERSCORP, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, and MORTGAGE ) ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ) SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv1111-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER In her motion to remand, plaintiff Nancy O. Robertson contends that defendants MERSCORP, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., have failed to satisfy the jurisdictional amount for removal based on diversity-of-citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court is also concerned whether the plaintiff (as a probate judge in her official capacity) is a citizen of the State of Alabama for § 1332 purposes. If the plaintiff is an arm of the State, cf. Carr v. City of Florence, 916 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that sheriffs county are actually state officials), then the plaintiff may very well not be a citizen for § 1332 purposes. See Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693 (1973) (a State and its officials are not citizens for diversity purposes). However, if the plaintiff is an arm of a political subdivision of the State, then she may very well be a citizen for § 1332 purposes. See University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that a political subdivision of a State and its officials are citizens for diversity purposes). *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff s motion to remand (Doc. No. 12) is set for submission, without oral argument, on January 27, 2012, with the defendants to file any opposition brief by January 20, 2 2012, and the plaintiff to reply by January 27, 2012. In their briefs, the plaintiff and the defendants should address not only the issue raised in the remand motion but also the court s concern as well. DONE, this the 9th day of January, 2012. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
