Posted on Oct 03, 2012
The Eastern District Order and Memo in Matteo v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, NO. 2:12-cv-5012 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2012) recently dealt with removal to federal court after diversity jurisdiction was not created by any act of the Plaintiff. In this case the third party tort and underinsured motorist claims were jointly filed in state court. The trial judge severed the two claims and then the insurance company removed the case against it to federal court based upon diversity. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand arguing that under the voluntary/involuntary rule the case could not be removed because diversity jurisdiction was not made possible by a voluntary act of the Plaintiff.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania declines to adopt an improper joinder exception to the rule and applies the rule to the motion. The Court “finds that, since diversity jurisdiction in this case did not result from a voluntary act of Plaintiff but rather from a state court order of severance, this case should properly be remanded to state court for further proceedings.” The Motion to Remand is granted.
If you have been injured in a Pennsylvania car accident or a loved one has been injured or killed in a car accident contact Central Pennsylvania based Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers, and we will answer any questions you have about the accident and the legal rights you may have due to the personal injury and losses involving any Pennsylvania car accident, especially if you may need a lawyer.
Schmidt Kramer – Ph: (717) 888-8888