GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Company, Inc., 2013 WL 1846541 (7th Cir. 2013) examines Federal jurisdiction and removal practice and how those rules impact creditors’ rights in post-judgment proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History: Plaintiff obtained a multi-million dollar judgment in North Carolina state court against Defendant.
The defendant then secretly transferred several million dollars to a Chicago bank that recorded liens against the funds and all other defendant assets.
When plaintiff found out about the transfer, it registered the NC judgment in Illinois and issued a third-party citation against the bank to whom defendant transferred its assets.
The judgment debtor (and defendant in the NC state court case) moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois under diversity jurisdiction rules.
Plaintiff objected to removal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and sought remand back to NC state court. The Northern District denied Plaintiff’s remand attempt and kept the case.
Held: Reversed. The District Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for remand based on the “forum defendant” rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
Rules/Reasoning: The Northern District had original jurisdiction over the action since there was complete diversity among the parties: plaintiff is a Pennsylvania corporation, defendant is a Tennessee corporation, and the third-party respondent bank is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is in Illinois.
The Seventh Circuit also held that the District Court had jurisdiction to enforce a state court judgment under section 28 U.S.C. § 1963, which permits a Federal court to register the judgment of another “district court.”
Giving a broad reading to Section 1963, the Court noted that several state courts use the “district court” moniker. Because of this, the Court held that the Illinois Northern District could register the NC state court judgment. *8
But the argument that carried the day for the Plaintiff was the “forum defendant” rule. This rule states that “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
But the forum defendant rule involves a statutory defect rather than a jurisdictional one: meaning that the defect is waived if not objected to within 30 days of the removal notice. (*9), 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)(motion to remand – other than for lack of subject matter jurisdiction – must be brought within 30 days after filing the notice of removal).
Since the bank’s principal place of business was Illinois, it clearly met the “forum” component of the “forum defendant” test. The Court also held that the bank was a “defendant” within the rule because its interest in the defendants assets were completely opposed to the plaintiff’s interest. (*11-14).
Lastly, the Court found that Plaintiff properly objected to removal within 30 days – as evidenced by its motion to reconsider filed 16 days after the Northern District denied its remand motion.
– If an Illinois party is sued by a foreign plaintiff and the damages exceed $75K, removal isn’t proper. However, if the plaintiff fails to timely seek a remand, he will have waived the defect and the removal will stand;
– a foreign state court judgment can arguably be registered in a Federal District Court.