Signed April 30, 2007--Memorandum opinion by Judge Andre M. Davis. (Not approved for publication.)
In a previous opinion (MCW synopsis here), the Court remanded the case to state court from which it had been removed. After remand, the plaintiff amended its complaint. In response, the defendant again attempted to remove the case to federal court.
The plaintiff had previously attempted to amend its claim in federal court to state the same additional claim that it set forth in the amended complaint filed in state court. The defendant had previously opposed this amendment in federal court and the defendant's opposition was sustained. However, because Maryland state rules are more liberal with respect to the allowance of amendments, the defendant lacked the ability to attack the amendment procedurally in the state court. Instead, it argued that the amendment constituted a "changed circumstance" allowing it to again seek removal to the federal court.
The Court again remanded the case to state court holding that: "Plainly, defendant will not be heard to contend under the circumstances here that plaintiff engaged in 'procedural fencing' to deprive it of a federal forum. . . or that it 'uncovered' some 'new ground of removal' after this case was remanded." (Citations omitted.)
The Court's opinion is available in PDF.
Showing posts with label removal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label removal. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Gordon Grocery, Inc. v. Associated Wholesalers, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.) (Approved for Publication)
Signed February 28, 2007--Memorandum opinion by Judge Andre M. Davis. (Approved for publication.)
Held: Dispute over stock redemption procedures remanded back to state court on the basis of mootness.
Plaintiff Gordon Grocery, Inc. ("Gordon Grocery") is a shareholder in defendant Associated Wholesalers, Inc. ("Associated"), which is a Pennsylvania corporation operating as a cooperative engaged in the business of purchasing, manufacturing, processing, warehousing and distributing food and related merchandise for retail merchant shareholders such as plaintiff. In the fall of 2005, Associated notified Gordon Grocery that it had failed to satisfy the minimum purchase requirements of the cooperative, and that Associated would redeem Gordon Grocery's shares, thereby terminating their relationship. Associated proposed to do so in two installments, one-third initially, and two thirds in 2010, while Gordon Grocery asserted the right to immediate redemption, and filed in state court for a declaratory judgment to that effect. Associated had the case removed to federal court.
During discovery, Associated elected to rescind the redemption determination and retain Gordon Grocery as a shareholder, thus rendering the dispute over redemption procedures abstract, and moved for summary judgment on the ground of mootness. The judge agreed, but rather than rendering the requested "judgment" in favor of Associated, remanded the case to state court from which it had been removed, where the judge speculated (but declined to decide) that the state trial court might determine it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of mootness.
The memorandum opinion is available in PDF.
Held: Dispute over stock redemption procedures remanded back to state court on the basis of mootness.
Plaintiff Gordon Grocery, Inc. ("Gordon Grocery") is a shareholder in defendant Associated Wholesalers, Inc. ("Associated"), which is a Pennsylvania corporation operating as a cooperative engaged in the business of purchasing, manufacturing, processing, warehousing and distributing food and related merchandise for retail merchant shareholders such as plaintiff. In the fall of 2005, Associated notified Gordon Grocery that it had failed to satisfy the minimum purchase requirements of the cooperative, and that Associated would redeem Gordon Grocery's shares, thereby terminating their relationship. Associated proposed to do so in two installments, one-third initially, and two thirds in 2010, while Gordon Grocery asserted the right to immediate redemption, and filed in state court for a declaratory judgment to that effect. Associated had the case removed to federal court.
During discovery, Associated elected to rescind the redemption determination and retain Gordon Grocery as a shareholder, thus rendering the dispute over redemption procedures abstract, and moved for summary judgment on the ground of mootness. The judge agreed, but rather than rendering the requested "judgment" in favor of Associated, remanded the case to state court from which it had been removed, where the judge speculated (but declined to decide) that the state trial court might determine it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of mootness.
The memorandum opinion is available in PDF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
