Taylor v. Bayer Corporation
3:11-cv-20073
S.D. Ill.Jul 20, 2011Background
- Parties: Taylor (Alabama) and Peters (Alabama) are aligned as plaintiffs/defendants; Bayer and Ocella defendants are non-Alabama citizens.
- Procedural posture: Peters moved to remand; removal asserted realignment would create diversity.
- Key events: Taylor and Peters had pre-suit releases/settlements; releases may affect live controversy between them.
- Removal posture: Removing defendants argued Peters, as nominal/realigned plaintiff, need not consent; Peters argued there was live controversy and no realignment would be proper.
- Jurisdictional questions: Court considered diversity after potential realignment and whether amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peters should be realigned as a plaintiff. | Taylor and Peters had live conflict; Peters cannot be realigned. | No live conflict; realignment appropriate to align with Taylor's interests. | Realignment as plaintiff appropriate; no real conflict. |
| Whether removal was proper after realignment. | Realignment does not affect removal; consent still required. | Realignment enables removal despite Peters’ non-consent. | Removal proper after realignment. |
| Whether complete diversity exists post-realignment. | Peters remains Alabama citizen; not diverse. | Realignment yields complete diversity. | Complete diversity established post-realignment. |
| Whether Peters’ consent to removal was required. | Nominal/realigned plaintiff need not consent. | Consent not required for nominal/formal parties. | Consent not required; Peters deemed nominal. |
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. | Taylor’s alleged injuries exceed threshold; damages sought. | Severe injuries and punitive claims meet threshold. | Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63 (1941) (look beyond pleadings for true interests in diversity)
- Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Trane Co., 657 F.2d 146 (7th Cir. 1981) (define how to assess realignment; non-mechanical, principal purpose of suit)
- Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1993) (nominal/formal parties need not consent to removal)
- Wolf v. Kennelly, 574 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (actual and substantial controversy test for realignment)