not independent, and hence not removable. 1A Moore, Federal Practice § 0.157(4. -- 11), pp. 171, 172. In my view Coastal's defense is not a separate and independent cause of action, but is supplementary to the original action.
In Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80, 25 L. Ed. 407 (1879), a judgment debtor filed a petition with a state court praying for a decree of nullity because he had been discharged in bankruptcy between the date that the debt was incurred and the date of judgment. The judgment creditor then removed the action to the federal court. In ruling that the cause should have been remanded to the state court, the Supreme Court took the position that the proceeding directed towards the nullification of the judgment was a supplementary proceeding incident to the original suit and a continuation of it, rather than a separate suit.
A counterclaim or a set-off is not removable to the federal courts. West v. Aurora City, 73 U.S. 139, 18 L. Ed. 819 (1868).
Coastal's claim is of no greater dignity and of no greater independence than the defendants' claims in Barrow and in West.
While these two United States Supreme Court cases are centenarian, they have not been overruled or modified and are binding on me.
An appropriate order will be entered.
In accordance with the opinion filed this day, It is ordered that the Motion to Remand be and the same is hereby granted and, the case is hereby remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of York County from which it was removed.
The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of this order upon the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of York County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.