Alexander v. Goldome Credit Corp case
brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
772 F. Supp. 1217 (M.D. Ala. 1991)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant credit
corporation filed a motion to remand plaintiff homeowner's action
that was filed against defendants, credit corporation, construction
company, and its agent, which alleged that the construction company
violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq., and
alleged various state law claims. The construction company was the
only defendant that signed the notice of remand.
FACTS: After homeowners refused to sign a certificate of completion for home improvement work performed by a construction company, they alleged that the credit corporation disbursed the amount financed to the construction company in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq. The homeowners sought compensatory and punitive damages against the credit corporation, construction company, and its agent. The credit corporation filed a motion to remand, which was not signed by the co-defendants.
FACTS: After homeowners refused to sign a certificate of completion for home improvement work performed by a construction company, they alleged that the credit corporation disbursed the amount financed to the construction company in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq. The homeowners sought compensatory and punitive damages against the credit corporation, construction company, and its agent. The credit corporation filed a motion to remand, which was not signed by the co-defendants.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that the TILA claim
provided a basis for removal of the entire case under 28 U.S.C.S. §
1441(c). The court found that the failure of all defendants to join
in the notice of removal was not fatal to a removal under § 1441(c)
because the construction company was the only defendant that had the
separate and independent federal TILA claim filed against it, and
thus was the one required to sign the notice. The court found that
state law predominated in the case and that it would be improper to
allow the entire case to be removed to federal court on the basis of
the relatively insignificant federal claim. The court granted the
motion and remanded to state court.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the credit corporation's motion to remand the homeowner's action against it and two other defendants. The court remanded the entire case to state court.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the credit corporation's motion to remand the homeowner's action against it and two other defendants. The court remanded the entire case to state court.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment