New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Third-Party Defendants and Removal — Realignment of Parties — Right of Third-Party Defendant to Remove

Download PDF

In Huntsman Corp. v. Int’l Risk Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74397 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2008), Plaintiff Huntsman sued Defendant IRI for insurance coverage in state court. IRI in turn sued its reinsurers in a third-party complaint. The reinsurers/third-party defendants removed the case to federal court. Judge Lee H. Rosenthal’s analysis:

[Generally, No Removal by Third-Party Defendant.] Huntsman is correct that in general, "[a] third party defendant cannot remove a case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction."

[May Third-Party Defendant Ask Court to Realign Parties to Make It a Defendant (Who Can Then Remove)?] Courts have expressed doubt as to whether realignment may be used to allow a third-party defendant to remove. ***After reviewing the cited authorities and conducting an independent search for relevant case law, this court concludes that while there is authority supporting both the proposition that realignment may be used to satisfy diversity jurisdiction in removed actions and the proposition that realignment is not appropriate when diversity was not present when the action was removed, the trend in this circuit disapproves of using realignment after removal to cure a defect in removal jurisdiction. *** In addition, the cases disapprove of using realignment to allow a third-party defendant to remove on diversity grounds. *** The Reinsurers in this case could not remove based on diversity jurisdiction because they are third-party defendants. The Reinsurers could become "defendants" able to remove under section 1441(a) and diversity jurisdiction could be created only if this court realigned IRIC as a plaintiff and the Reinsurers as defendants. Using realignment both to avoid the statutory limit on the parties able to remove and the jurisdictional limit on removal is a far cry from resolving all doubts against removal. *** The recent case law disapproving of realigning parties to supply removal jurisdiction and to enable third-party defendants to remove is persuasive and weighs against extending such uses of realignment to this case, in which third-party defendants seek realignment to bring themselves within the scope of section 1441(a) and to create diversity jurisdiction.

[Removal under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) v. Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).] Huntsman asserts that removal under the Convention is limited to defendants. ***The Reinsurers did not remove under the Convention's removal procedure. Rather, they removed under section 1441(c) on the basis that the third-party petition contains separate and independent claims that are within federal-question jurisdiction under the Convention. *** Because IRIC's claims against the Reinsurers are separate and independent from Huntsman's claims, the entire action is removable under section 1441(c) if IRIC's claims against the Reinsurers are within federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The asserted basis for the federal-question jurisdiction is the Convention. The Reinsurers contend that the relevant portions of the Convention are contained in 9 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205. [The Court agreed.]

[Waiver of Right to Remove via Follow-Form Reinsurance Policies.] Huntsman also argues that the Reinsurers waived their right to remove by agreeing to follow the terms of the Huntsman-IRIC Policy, which Huntsman alleges gives Huntsman the right to litigate claims against IRIC in a court of Huntsman's choosing. ***The Reinsurers did not waive their right to removal by executing the Reinsurance Certificates. The Reinsurers are not parties to the Huntsman-IRIC Policy. Although the Reinsurers agreed through the Reinsurance Certificates to follow the terms of the Huntsman-IRIC Policy, the Huntsman-IRIC Policy specifies only that in disputes under that Policy, at the request of Huntsman, IRIC will submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will not transfer, change venue, or remove, or seek to transfer, change venue, or remove any lawsuit filed by Huntsman. *** Although the Reinsurers agreed to follow the terms of the Huntsman-IRIC Policy, removal by the Reinsurers of third-party claims made by IRIC against the Reinsurers is not inconsistent with the requirement in the Huntsman-IRIC Policy that IRIC will submit to the jurisdiction of Huntsman's choosing and that IRIC will not remove a case filed by Huntsman. ***IRIC may have agreed to waive its right to remove by the language in the Huntsman-IRIC Policy, but the Reinsurers did not expressly waive the right to remove. The fact that the Reinsurers agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Huntsman-IRIC Policy did not expressly waive their right to remove because the Huntsman-IRIC Policy only specified that IRIC would not remove a lawsuit filed by Huntsman.

Motion to remand denied.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice