Legal Opinion
Monaco v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 8, 1981No. Civ. A. 80-3646PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILES, District Judge.
Plaintiffs move to remand to state court on the ground of improper removal. The record reflects that the removal petition was not joined by all defendants who had been served in this action. Joinder by all defendants is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1442(b). E. g., Royster v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., No. 81-121, slip op. at 2-3 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 26, 1981) (order remanding). Nevertheless, I shall deny the motion on the ground that plaintiff has waived his objection.
Plaintiffs raise a technical defect in removal as grounds for remand. They do not argue that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- French v. HaySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Green v. ZuckDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Sun Oil Co. of Pa. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor & Indus.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
- Fisher v. Exico Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Balestrieri v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- RECCHION ON BEHALF OF WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP. v. KirbyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
- Essington Metal Works, Inc. v. Retirement Plans of America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
- Prowell v. West Chemical Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- Midwestern Distribution, Inc. v. Paris Motor Freight Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.