Dranger et al v. Indiana Michigan Power Company et al, No. 1:2010cv00268 - Document 20 (W.D. Mich. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION 10 ; Order to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS S. DRANGER and MAUREEN E. DRANGER, Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:10-cv-268 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY, Defendants. ____________________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION This case arises out of alleged wrongful tree cutting by Defendants in violation of Michigan law. Plaintiffs initially filed suit in Michigan state court, and Defendants sought removal, alleging diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (Defs. Not. of Removal, Dkt 1 ¶ 5). Plaintiffs now seek to remand the case back to state court (Pls. Mot. to Remand, Dkt 10). Plaintiffs note that Defendant Indiana Michigan Power Co. indicated in its original Answer that it was in fact a Michigan corporation (id. ¶ 3; Ans. ¶ 2). Plaintiffs therefore contend this action was not properly removable because one of the defendants is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought (Pls. Br. ¶ 3 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Defendant Indiana Michigan Power Co. responded to Plaintiffs Motion by filing an Amended Answer, correcting its original Answer and stating that it is in actuality an Indiana Corporation (First Am. Ans. ¶ 2). Defendant Indiana Michigan Power Co. then filed an Answer to Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, acknowledging that its original answer was in error and reiterating that it is an Indiana corporation (Dkt 12 ¶¶ 2-4).1 The Court finds that Defendant Indiana Michigan Power Co. s Amended Answer is consistent with the representations that it made in the Petition for Removal stating Defendant Indiana and Michigan Power Company is an organization incorporated in the State of Indiana, with its principle [sic] office in Fort Wayne, Indiana (Dkt 1 ¶ 4(c)). Defendant Indiana Michigan Power has sufficiently documented to the Court s satisfaction that diversity of citizenship exists based on its Indiana citizenship. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction exists, and Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is therefore denied. DATED: May 24, 2010 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge 1 The documentation that Plaintiffs submit to the contrary (see Pls. Reply, Dkt 17 Ex. A) is not persuasive as it does not reflect Defendant Indiana Michigan Power Co. s current status. 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.
