Bellow v. Utica National Insurance

E.D. Pennsylvania

Bellow v. Utica National Insurance

701 F. Supp. 1134, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13973, 1988 WL 141445

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 8, 1988

DocketCiv. No. 88-7896

StatusPublished

This text of 701 F. Supp. 1134 (Bellow v. Utica National Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bellow v. Utica National Insurance, 701 F. Supp. 1134, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13973, 1988 WL 141445 (E.D. Pa. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM/ORDER

LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.

Defendant removed this insurance contract dispute from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff has now moved to remand the action to state court. He bases this motion solely on the fact that this matter commenced, not from the filing of a formal complaint, but only from a “Petition for appointment of arbitrator” pursuant to the state uniform arbitration act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7301 et seq. Plaintiff, citing Antonucci v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Slip Op., No. 84-4111 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 1, 1984), claims that this petition is insufficient to create a removable “civil action brought in a State court” under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 governing removal of actions.

The federal removal statute does not require the filing of an actual complaint in state court, but only an “initial pleading” [1135]*1135sufficient to give notice of a state proceeding such that the defendant can ascertain the removability of the proceeding. See Tyler v. Prudential Insurance Co., 524 F.Supp. 1211, 1214 (W.D.Pa.1981) (petition for rule to show cause in action under Pennsylvania no-fault law). Although An-tonucci found arbitration petitions were insufficient to meet this standard, the Court of Appeals has since drawn the opposite conclusion.

In Manze v. State Farm Insurance Co., 817 F.2d 1062 (3d Cir.1987), plaintiff had filed a similar petition for appointment of a neutral arbitrator of an insurance dispute under Pennsylvania law. The Court of Appeals regarded this “initial pleading” not only as sufficient to support defendant’s subsequent removal to federal court, but also observed that the running of the thirty-day filing period for removal began with the filing of that petition. Id. at 1069. See also C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, 14A Federal Practice and Procedure § 3732, at 524 (noting that the initiation of a state court arbitration proceeding may meet “the requirement of a ‘civil action brought in a State court’ ” for removal purposes).

Defendant’s petition for removal properly alleges the elements of diversity jurisdiction, which plaintiff does not rebut. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED that plaintiff’s motion for remand is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM/ORDER

LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.

Defendant removed this insurance contract dispute from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff has now moved to remand the action to state court. He bases this motion solely on the fact that this matter commenced, not from the filing of a formal complaint, but only from a “Petition for appointment of arbitrator” pursuant to the state uniform arbitration act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7301 et seq. Plaintiff, citing Antonucci v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Slip Op., No. 84-4111 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 1, 1984), claims that this petition is insufficient to create a removable “civil action brought in a State court” under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 governing removal of actions.

The federal removal statute does not require the filing of an actual complaint in state court, but only an “initial pleading” [1135]*1135sufficient to give notice of a state proceeding such that the defendant can ascertain the removability of the proceeding. See Tyler v. Prudential Insurance Co., 524 F.Supp. 1211, 1214 (W.D.Pa.1981) (petition for rule to show cause in action under Pennsylvania no-fault law). Although An-tonucci found arbitration petitions were insufficient to meet this standard, the Court of Appeals has since drawn the opposite conclusion.

In Manze v. State Farm Insurance Co., 817 F.2d 1062 (3d Cir.1987), plaintiff had filed a similar petition for appointment of a neutral arbitrator of an insurance dispute under Pennsylvania law. The Court of Appeals regarded this “initial pleading” not only as sufficient to support defendant’s subsequent removal to federal court, but also observed that the running of the thirty-day filing period for removal began with the filing of that petition. Id. at 1069. See also C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, 14A Federal Practice and Procedure § 3732, at 524 (noting that the initiation of a state court arbitration proceeding may meet “the requirement of a ‘civil action brought in a State court’ ” for removal purposes).

Defendant’s petition for removal properly alleges the elements of diversity jurisdiction, which plaintiff does not rebut. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED that plaintiff’s motion for remand is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 F. Supp. 1134, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13973, 1988 WL 141445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellow-v-utica-national-insurance-paed-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack