Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, I.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor v. Federal Express Corporation, Miranda Meeks, VL&T, Inc., and Jane and John Does 1-9

W.D. Arkansas

Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, I.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor v. Federal Express Corporation, Miranda Meeks, VL&T, Inc., and Jane and John Does 1-9

DecidedNovember 21, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-05184

StatusUnknown

This text of Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, I.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor v. Federal Express Corporation, Miranda Meeks, VL&T, Inc., and Jane and John Does 1-9 (Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, I.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor v. Federal Express Corporation, Miranda Meeks, VL&T, Inc., and Jane and John Does 1-9) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, I.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor v. Federal Express Corporation, Miranda Meeks, VL&T, Inc., and Jane and John Does 1-9, (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION SCOTTIE ALBIOUS and VICKY ALBIOUS, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, |.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 5:25-CV-05184 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, MIRANDA MEEKS, VL&T, INC., AND JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-9 DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, individually and as next friends of their minor children (Doc. 8), Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Miranda Meeks’ Opposition (Doc. 17), and the Albious family’s reply (Doc. 24). Having considered all relevant materials,’ the Court GRANTS the Albious family’s motion to remand for the reasons explained below. As the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, the remaining pending substantive motions in this case (Docs. 13, 18) are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 26) remains pending for the state court’s resolution. 1. BACKGROUND This personal injury case arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 8, 2024, in Benton County, Arkansas. On July 16, 2025, the Albious family filed suit in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas, Civil Division against Defendants. That complaint named FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and Miranda Meeks as

The Albious family also filed a brief in support of their motion to remand, which the Court has considered. See Doc. 9.

Defendants. See Doc. 2-2, p. 3. Based on Defendants’ initial answer, which noted that the correct name of the company is Federal Express Corporation rather than FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., the Albious family amended their complaint on August 25, 2025. See Doc. 2-2, p. 23. Defendants’ initial answer also noted that Ms. Meeks was an employee of VL&T, Inc. on the date of the alleged incident. On September 5, 2025, at 11:56 AM, Defendants emailed the Clerk of this Court to file a notice of removal based on diversity of citizenship because Ms. Meeks was apparently unable to file electronically. At 1:44 PM, the Albious family filed a Second Amended Complaint in the state court that added VL&T, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, as a defendant. See Doc. 9-1. A little over an hour later, at 2:54 PM, Defendants filed their notice of filing notice of removal in the state court. See Doc. 9-2. ll. LEGAL STANDARD “It is axiomatic that a court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has jurisdiction.” Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868)). A “civil action” may be removed from state to federal court if it is one in which district courts would have original jurisdiction, and only “the defendant or the defendants” may initiate removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). If a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, it must remand the case to the originating court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The proponents of federal jurisdiction bear ‘the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction,’ and ‘all

? Defendant Federal Express Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in a state other than Arkansas (Doc. 2- 2, p. 23); Ms. Meeks is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma (Doc. 6, p. 2); the Albious Plaintiffs are residents of Benton County, Arkansas (Doc. 2-2, p.44).

doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand.” Moore v. Kan. City Pub. Sch., 828 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Cent. lowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009)). A civil action removable based on a court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. lll. DISCUSSION The primary issue between the parties is whether Defendants’ removal of the action to this Court was proper once the Albious family amended their complaint to add VL&T, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, as a defendant. Defendants argue that removal was effectuated at the time they emailed the notice of removal for filing to the Clerk of this Court (before the complaint was amended). The Albious family counters that this reading is foreclosed by the statute and by the Eighth Circuit's decision in Anthony, which held that removal is effectuated only at the time a copy of the notice is filed with the clerk of the state court. See Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210, 214 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The only rule that logically follows from 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) is that removal is effected when the notice of removal is filed with the state court and at no other time.”). The Court is bound by Anthony's unequivocal language. As Defendants’ removal was effective only at the time they filed their notice in state court—one hour after Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint—the Court must consider VL&T’s presence as a defendant in determining its jurisdiction. VL&T, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation, and the

3 Although it is not clear from the parties’ briefing what time VL&T, Inc. was served by Plaintiffs (and so it is not clear that there was a party “properly joined and served” that

Court is thus unable to exercise jurisdiction over the case given its presence in the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court is further persuaded that remand is appropriate given that VL&T, Inc. was Ms. Meeks’ employer at the time of the incident, and thus adopting Defendants’ position at this juncture would likely lead to either a similar disagreement regarding VL&T’s joinder at a later time (potentially leading to a remand at that time) or the need to carry out further, separate litigation should VL&T be found liable in part or in whole for Ms. Meek’s allegedly negligent actions. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Albious family’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately REMAND this case to the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas, Civil Division. The remaining pending motions in this case (Docs. 13, 18) are DENIED AS MOOT. or IT IS SO ORDERED on this Zl day of Novegaber, 2025.

IEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

was a citizen of Arkansas before removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)), neither party briefed the issue.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION SCOTTIE ALBIOUS and VICKY ALBIOUS, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, |.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 5:25-CV-05184 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, MIRANDA MEEKS, VL&T, INC., AND JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-9 DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, individually and as next friends of their minor children (Doc. 8), Defendants Federal Express Corporation and Miranda Meeks’ Opposition (Doc. 17), and the Albious family’s reply (Doc. 24). Having considered all relevant materials,’ the Court GRANTS the Albious family’s motion to remand for the reasons explained below. As the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, the remaining pending substantive motions in this case (Docs. 13, 18) are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 26) remains pending for the state court’s resolution. 1. BACKGROUND This personal injury case arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 8, 2024, in Benton County, Arkansas. On July 16, 2025, the Albious family filed suit in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas, Civil Division against Defendants. That complaint named FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and Miranda Meeks as

The Albious family also filed a brief in support of their motion to remand, which the Court has considered. See Doc. 9.

Defendants. See Doc. 2-2, p. 3. Based on Defendants’ initial answer, which noted that the correct name of the company is Federal Express Corporation rather than FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., the Albious family amended their complaint on August 25, 2025. See Doc. 2-2, p. 23. Defendants’ initial answer also noted that Ms. Meeks was an employee of VL&T, Inc. on the date of the alleged incident. On September 5, 2025, at 11:56 AM, Defendants emailed the Clerk of this Court to file a notice of removal based on diversity of citizenship because Ms. Meeks was apparently unable to file electronically. At 1:44 PM, the Albious family filed a Second Amended Complaint in the state court that added VL&T, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, as a defendant. See Doc. 9-1. A little over an hour later, at 2:54 PM, Defendants filed their notice of filing notice of removal in the state court. See Doc. 9-2. ll. LEGAL STANDARD “It is axiomatic that a court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has jurisdiction.” Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868)). A “civil action” may be removed from state to federal court if it is one in which district courts would have original jurisdiction, and only “the defendant or the defendants” may initiate removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). If a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, it must remand the case to the originating court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The proponents of federal jurisdiction bear ‘the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction,’ and ‘all

? Defendant Federal Express Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in a state other than Arkansas (Doc. 2- 2, p. 23); Ms. Meeks is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma (Doc. 6, p. 2); the Albious Plaintiffs are residents of Benton County, Arkansas (Doc. 2-2, p.44).

doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand.” Moore v. Kan. City Pub. Sch., 828 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Cent. lowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009)). A civil action removable based on a court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. lll. DISCUSSION The primary issue between the parties is whether Defendants’ removal of the action to this Court was proper once the Albious family amended their complaint to add VL&T, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, as a defendant. Defendants argue that removal was effectuated at the time they emailed the notice of removal for filing to the Clerk of this Court (before the complaint was amended). The Albious family counters that this reading is foreclosed by the statute and by the Eighth Circuit's decision in Anthony, which held that removal is effectuated only at the time a copy of the notice is filed with the clerk of the state court. See Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210, 214 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The only rule that logically follows from 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) is that removal is effected when the notice of removal is filed with the state court and at no other time.”). The Court is bound by Anthony's unequivocal language. As Defendants’ removal was effective only at the time they filed their notice in state court—one hour after Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint—the Court must consider VL&T’s presence as a defendant in determining its jurisdiction. VL&T, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation, and the

3 Although it is not clear from the parties’ briefing what time VL&T, Inc. was served by Plaintiffs (and so it is not clear that there was a party “properly joined and served” that

Court is thus unable to exercise jurisdiction over the case given its presence in the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court is further persuaded that remand is appropriate given that VL&T, Inc. was Ms. Meeks’ employer at the time of the incident, and thus adopting Defendants’ position at this juncture would likely lead to either a similar disagreement regarding VL&T’s joinder at a later time (potentially leading to a remand at that time) or the need to carry out further, separate litigation should VL&T be found liable in part or in whole for Ms. Meek’s allegedly negligent actions. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Albious family’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately REMAND this case to the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas, Civil Division. The remaining pending motions in this case (Docs. 13, 18) are DENIED AS MOOT. or IT IS SO ORDERED on this Zl day of Novegaber, 2025.

IEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

was a citizen of Arkansas before removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)), neither party briefed the issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scottie Albious and Vicky Albious, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Next Friends of K.A., a Minor, I.A., a Minor, and T.A., a Minor v. Federal Express Corporation, Miranda Meeks, VL&T, Inc., and Jane and John Does 1-9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scottie-albious-and-vicky-albious-husband-and-wife-individually-and-as-arwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack