TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Borders v. United States Gypsum Co.

William D. BORDERS, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, a Corporation Sole and St. Margaret’s Roman Catholic Congregation Inc. v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY

Borders v. United States Gypsum Co., 704 F. Supp. 615 (D. Maryland 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, D. Maryland · Federal District Courts
Decided
February 14, 1989
Docket
No. Civ. S 89-462
Judges
Smalkin
Citations
704 F. Supp. 6151989 WL 112551989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1384

Opinion — Smalkin

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SMALKIN, District Judge.

This is an action that was commenced in July, 1987 in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland. The suit seeks damages for the cost of removing asbestos-laden plaster from the interior walls of a church. After various mesne proceedings, complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the remaining defendant was achieved in January, 1989. A notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b) (1982) was filed in this Court February 13, 1989. The Court has considered sua sponte whether the case ought to be remanded to the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) (1982).

See Manas y Pineiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 443 F.Supp. 418, 421 (S.D.N.Y.1978).

The Court is of the opinion that this case was improvidently removed and should be remanded. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b) (1982), as amended by the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub.L. 100-702, § 1016 , 102 Stat. 4642 (1988), a diversity case is not removable after it has been pending in the state court for more than one year. This amendment to § 1446(b) was effective on the date of its enactment, November 19, 1988. The Court is of the opinion that Congress intended the one year limitation to apply to all cases pending on the effective date of the amendment.

Because this case was improvidently removed, IT IS ORDERED that this case BE, and the same hereby IS, REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland with costs on remand to the plaintiffs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court mail copies of this Memorandum and Order to counsel for the parties and to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 11991: 119902026peak 1990 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cofer v. Horsehead Research & Development Co.805 F. Supp. 541 (E.D. Tenn. 1991)
  2. LEIDOLF BY WARSHAFSKY v. Eli Lilly and Co., Inc.728 F. Supp. 1383 (E.D. Wis. 1990)

Most recent

  1. Cofer v. Horsehead Research & Development Co.805 F. Supp. 541 (E.D. Tenn. 1991)
  2. LEIDOLF BY WARSHAFSKY v. Eli Lilly and Co., Inc.728 F. Supp. 1383 (E.D. Wis. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Manas Y Pineiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., 443 F. Supp. 418 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list