Tallent v. Harshaw

E.D. Arkansas

Tallent v. Harshaw

592 F. Supp. 66, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23650

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 12, 1984

DocketNo. LR-C-84-480

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 592 F. Supp. 66 (Tallent v. Harshaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tallent v. Harshaw, 592 F. Supp. 66, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23650 (E.D. Ark. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

HENRY WOODS, District Judge.

The Court will treat plaintiffs’ response to Petition to Remove as a motion to remand this matter to state court. Defendants allege that the individual defendant Dwight Harshaw's residence should be disregarded in determining whether or not [67]*67this court may exercise its diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges in part that defendant Harshaw acted within the scope of his authority as agent of defendant Southwestern Bell in the transaction at issue. If plaintiff proved the allegations of its complaint, it would not be entitled to relief against defendant Harshaw. Harshaw is alleged to be a disclosed agent of Southwestern Bell acting within the scope of his authority. Arkansas law would not permit a recovery against Harshaw under this state of facts, Ferguson v. Huddleston, 208 Ark. 353, 186 S.W.2d 152 (1945), and therefore his Arkansas residence will be ignored by this court in accepting the removal petition. The motion to remand to state court is denied. See, e.g., Fields, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 707 (W.D.Okla.1975).

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

ORDER

HENRY WOODS, District Judge.

The Court will treat plaintiffs’ response to Petition to Remove as a motion to remand this matter to state court. Defendants allege that the individual defendant Dwight Harshaw's residence should be disregarded in determining whether or not [67]*67this court may exercise its diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges in part that defendant Harshaw acted within the scope of his authority as agent of defendant Southwestern Bell in the transaction at issue. If plaintiff proved the allegations of its complaint, it would not be entitled to relief against defendant Harshaw. Harshaw is alleged to be a disclosed agent of Southwestern Bell acting within the scope of his authority. Arkansas law would not permit a recovery against Harshaw under this state of facts, Ferguson v. Huddleston, 208 Ark. 353, 186 S.W.2d 152 (1945), and therefore his Arkansas residence will be ignored by this court in accepting the removal petition. The motion to remand to state court is denied. See, e.g., Fields, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., 397 F.Supp. 707 (W.D.Okla.1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 F. Supp. 66, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tallent-v-harshaw-ared-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack