carrier was not authorized to accept service of process on their behalf.
Finally, the defendants contend that because the state court complaint did not allege all the parties' citizenship, the defendants did not receive adequate notice that the case was removable to the federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. This claim seems rather disingenuous, since the defendants were readily able to ascertain all parties' citizenship and file their petition for removal as soon as their Preliminary Objections were denied by the state court. Moreover, this Court recently has observed that "the great majority of courts that have considered the matter have concluded that a failure of the plaintiff to allege a party's citizenship in the initial pleading does not prevent the thirty day removal period from commencing." Stokes v. Victory Carriers, Inc., et al., 577 F. Supp. 9, 11 (E.D.Pa. 1983). See, e.g., Blow, et al. v. Liberty Travel, 550 F. Supp. 375, 377 (E.D.Pa. 1982); DiMeglio v. Italia Crociere Internazionale, 502 F. Supp. 316, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Kaneshiro v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, 496 F. Supp. 452, 462 (D.Ha. 1980); Nicholas v. Macneille, 492 F. Supp. 1046, 1047 (D.S.C. C.D. 1980); Lee v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 5, 7 (W.D.Okl. 1976); Jong v. General Motors Corp., et al., 359 F. Supp. 223, 224-25 (N.D.Cal. 1973). This Court noted in Stokes that "as a matter of general practice, state court plaintiffs do not routinely allege the citizenship of the parties in their complaints, and that where the initial pleading is 'indeterminate' as to the parties' citizenship, 'the burden is on the defendant seeking removal to scrutinize the case and remove it in a timely fashion. '" 577 F. Supp. at 11, quoting Kaneshiro v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, 496 F. Supp. at 455-56, 462.
It is well-settled that the removal statutes are to be construed strictly against removal and in favor of remand. Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09, 61 S. Ct. 868, 872, 85 L. Ed. 1214 (1941); Stokes, 577 F. Supp. at 12. On a motion to remand the burden is upon the defendant to establish that the case was properly removed to the federal court. Jones v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 541 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1976); Blow, et al. v. Liberty Travel, 550 F. Supp. at 375-76; 1A Moore's Federal Practice, supra at P 0.168[4.-1], p. 647. For the reasons set forth above this Court has determined that this action was not removed within the thirty day period provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Accordingly, an order will be entered remanding this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County.
AND NOW, this 17 day of December, 1984, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, this Court having determined for the reasons stated in its Memorandum of December 17th, 1984 that this matter was improvidently removed and hence this Court is without jurisdiction,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, and a certified copy of this Order shall be mailed by the Clerk of this Court to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, together with all records and documents filed in this matter.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.