Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kastner v. Intrust Bank

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

September 25, 2013

KRISTOFER THOMAS KASTNER, Plaintiff,
v.
INTRUST BANK, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On September 13, 2012, Defendants Intrust Bank, C.Q. Chandler, Roger W. Lemon, and Intrust Financial Corporation (all Kansas citizens) removed this action from Sedgwick County District Court, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On September 20, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) asserting that the Court should dismiss the 2012 state action because it was an impermissible collateral attack on the Court’s Orders in Case No. 10-1012.[1] On October 12, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Kristofer Thomas Kastner filed a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). Plaintiff also designated this document as a Motion to Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and asserted that the Court did not have jurisdiction and should remand the case to state court.[2]

A civil case filed in state court is only removable if that action could have originally been brought in federal court.[3] Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), an action removed on the basis of diversity is only removable “if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” “Removal jurisdiction over diversity cases is more limited than jurisdiction over diversity cases originally brought in federal court because removal based on diversity is available only if none of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.”[4]

In this case, all Defendants are Kansas citizens, and Defendants contend that the basis for their removal is diversity.[5] Pursuant to § 1441(b), because all Defendants are citizens of Kansas, this case is not properly removable. Thus, the Court must grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 12) and deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5).[6]

T IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2013, that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 5) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Sedgwick County District Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.