Mariner Finance, LLC v. Perkins

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-01592
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER PERKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:23CV1592 HEA ) LIFE OF THE SOUTH INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 10]. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Mariner Finance, LLC filed this lawsuit in the state circuit court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri against Defendant Christopher D. Perkins. Mariner alleged Perkins defaulted under the terms of a Note, Security Agreement & Arbitration Agreement in that he failed to make the required payments thereunder. Perkins filed a third-party claim against Life of the South Insurance Company, alleging that Life of the South did not return unearned premiums due to Perkins and a class of insureds whose policies had been terminated or cancelled. Approximately two months after Perkins filed the third-party complaint, Life of the South purported to remove the lawsuit to this Court. Thereafter, Perkins

brought this Motion to Remand. DISCUSSION In the Eighth Circuit, third-party defendants generally are not permitted to

remove. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Copy Ctr. of Topeka, Inc., No. CV 23-3443, 2024 WL 551292, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2024); Steeby v. Discover Bank, 980 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1136 (W.D. Mo. 2013) (citing Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir. 1991)); see also Duckson, Carlson, Bassinger, LLC v. Lake Bank,

N.A., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1118 (D. Minn. 2001)(“It is well-established that a defendant cannot remove based on a counterclaim.”). The Supreme Court in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748-49 (2019), directly

“address[ed] whether [the removal statute—28 U.S.C. § 1441] allows a third-party counterclaim defendant—that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant—to remove the counterclaim filed against it.” Home Depot, 139 S. Ct. at 1745-46. The Court concluded that the

removal statute does not allow a counterclaim defendant to remove. See id. at 1748 (“[W]e conclude that § 1441(a) does not permit removal by any counterclaim defendant, including parties brought into the lawsuit for the first time by the

counterclaim.”). Life of the South asserts that even though it was not named as an original defendant, it is, in actuality, a defendant in this matter and that Home Depot is “wrongly decided,” citing Justice Alito’s dissent. Home Depots ruling is inescapable: “§ 1441(a) does not permit removal by any counterclaim defendant, including parties brought into the lawsuit for the first time by the counterclaim.” /d. Only an original defendant or defendants to a complaint can remove a civil action to federal court. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the removal of this action was improper and must be remanded. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Perkins’ Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Dated this 25" day of June, 2024.

Hasbood [lol HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE