Andersen v. Khanna
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140510
| S.D. Iowa | 2011Background
- ERISA subrogation involved; Syngenta Plan paid portion of medical expenses and was later joined as subrogation plaintiff.
- State court dismissed Count IV (subrogation) on partial summary judgment; appeal denied by Iowa Supreme Court.
- Syngenta sought removal to federal court on ERISA preemption grounds after state court actions regarding reimbursement provisions.
- Removal contested on grounds of party status, timeliness (30-day clock), and federal question jurisdiction.
- Court must strictly construe removal jurisdiction; burden lies on proponent of removal; doubts favor remand.
- Syngenta argued it remained a party due to caption, service, and potential appeal, but court rejected these as insufficient to sustain party status for removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Syngenta remained a party at removal. | Syngenta stayed a party because not officially dismissed. | Syngenta remained a party by caption and service. | Syngenta was not a party at removal. |
| Whether removal could be made by a non-defendant party. | Syngenta was improperly categorized as plaintiff but seeks removal. | Removal by non-defendant not allowed. | Only a defendant may remove; Syngenta cannot remove. |
| Whether removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). | Removal timely under 30-day clock after removable event. | Removal artesian relied on later motion but clock timely. | Removal not timely; clock did not restart properly. |
| Whether ERISA preemption provides federal question jurisdiction. | Motion to clarify could reveal ERISA-preempted claims. | No new federal questions emerged; motion did not create removability. | No substantial federal question; complete preemption not established. |
| Whether realignment of parties would permit removal. | Realignment could treat Syngenta as defendant. | Realignment not appropriate; parties lacked adverse position. | Realignment not warranted; removal still improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (removal doubts resolved in favor of remand when doubtful)
- Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (federal questions and preemption principles)
- Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2007) (timeliness of removal and 1446(b) application)
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 403 F.Supp.2d 897 (S.D. Iowa 2005) (removal standards and federal question analysis)
- Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2008) (proper party status and removal limitations)
- City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 314 U.S. 63 (1941) (non-mechanical approach to party designation; realignment authority)
- Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2001) (realignment as to reflect controlling dispute; not in diversity context)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (reiterated strict removal doctrine)