Civil Procedure — wrongful removal — sanctions

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — wrongful removal — sanctions

Where an alien had permanent-residence status in the same state as the opposing party, diversity jurisdiction is not present and the case was wrongfully removed.

“‘For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.’ Section 1332(a) hanging paragraph. (This language, too, was amended by the 2011 Act to make doubly clear that an alien domiciled in the United States is treated as a citizen of the state of domicile.) If Zvunca has permanent-residence status, then citizens of Illinois are on both sides of the case, whether Zvunca is represented by MB Financial or by Klein. And, if that’s right, then Novoselsky could not remove even if he were treated as a party. Complete diversity is essential. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch (7 U.S.) 267 (1806). A suit with citizens of Illinois on both sides cannot be removed under the diversity jurisdiction.”

Affirmed.

11-2603 MB Financial, N.A., v. Stevens

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Easterbrook, J.