Jo Wesley v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Vayan Group, LLC, and Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc.

W.D. Missouri

Jo Wesley v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Vayan Group, LLC, and Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc.

DecidedDecember 2, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00554

StatusUnknown

This text of Jo Wesley v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Vayan Group, LLC, and Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc. (Jo Wesley v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Vayan Group, LLC, and Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jo Wesley v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Vayan Group, LLC, and Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc., (W.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

JO WESLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-CV-00554-DGK ) THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) VAYAN GROUP, LLC, and ) ) ARROW WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This equitable garnishment action stems from a default judgment issued by the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, against two defendants. Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, and Defendants removed it to this Court. Now before the Court are the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order and Postpone Mediation and for a Temporary Stay of Litigation, ECF No. 23, and the Court’s Order, ECF No. 24, soliciting the parties views on whether this dispute was ripe for adjudication. In their joint motion, the parties report that Defendant Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc., has filed a motion to set aside the underlying judgment on which the proposed equitable garnishments are based, and Defendant Vayan Group, LLC, intends to file a similar motion. The Court’s order observed that if the state court was considering setting aside the judgments, a development which would moot this case, then this dispute might not be ripe. Order at 2. Further, the Court questioned whether in the event the case was not ripe it should be dismissed. Id. After carefully reviewing the record, the Court holds this dispute is not ripe, thus the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear it. And because this case was removed from state court, it must be remanded back to state court, not dismissed. See Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 747 F.3d 1025, 1032 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding that where a state case is removed to federal court but lacks Article III standing, the proper remedy is remand to state court); Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v.

Calvary Hill Cemetery, 318 F. Supp. 2d 429, 432 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (noting that if a federal claim upon which the removal is based is not ripe, a district court “must remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is instructed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: December 2, 2025 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

JO WESLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-CV-00554-DGK ) THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) VAYAN GROUP, LLC, and ) ) ARROW WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This equitable garnishment action stems from a default judgment issued by the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, against two defendants. Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, and Defendants removed it to this Court. Now before the Court are the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order and Postpone Mediation and for a Temporary Stay of Litigation, ECF No. 23, and the Court’s Order, ECF No. 24, soliciting the parties views on whether this dispute was ripe for adjudication. In their joint motion, the parties report that Defendant Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc., has filed a motion to set aside the underlying judgment on which the proposed equitable garnishments are based, and Defendant Vayan Group, LLC, intends to file a similar motion. The Court’s order observed that if the state court was considering setting aside the judgments, a development which would moot this case, then this dispute might not be ripe. Order at 2. Further, the Court questioned whether in the event the case was not ripe it should be dismissed. Id. After carefully reviewing the record, the Court holds this dispute is not ripe, thus the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear it. And because this case was removed from state court, it must be remanded back to state court, not dismissed. See Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 747 F.3d 1025, 1032 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding that where a state case is removed to federal court but lacks Article III standing, the proper remedy is remand to state court); Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v.

Calvary Hill Cemetery, 318 F. Supp. 2d 429, 432 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (noting that if a federal claim upon which the removal is based is not ripe, a district court “must remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is instructed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: December 2, 2025 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jo Wesley v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Vayan Group, LLC, and Arrow Workforce Solutions, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jo-wesley-v-the-cincinnati-casualty-company-philadelphia-indemnity-mowd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack