Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Global Transactions, LLC v. Global Spectrum Pico

March 6, 2013

GLOBAL TRANSACTIONS, LLC,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
GLOBAL SPECTRUM PICO PTE., LTD.,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DuBois, J.

MEMORANDUM

I.INTRODUCTION

On November 26, 2012, plaintiff Global Transactions, LLC filed suit against defendant Global Spectrum Pico Pte., Ltd. in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. On December 26, 2012, defendant removed the case to this Court. Plaintiff now moves to remand the case because the Notice of Removal was fundamentally defective, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Defendant opposes that motion and simultaneously moves for leave to amend its Notice of Removal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and denies Defendant's Motion to Amend Notice of Removal.

II.BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff's claims arise from defendant's alleged unlawful withholding of consulting fees owed under a consulting agreement between the parties. (Compl. ¶ 7.) The Complaint is based on, inter alia, breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment.

B. Procedural Background

On December 26, 2012, thirty days after the initial filing of the complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this Court./07/13 Page 2 of 7

In that Notice, defendant claimed there was diversity between the parties. Specifically, defendant averred that plaintiff was a citizen of Texas and that defendant was a "foreign limited liability company, with members who are citizens of the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida, and the Country of Singapore." (Notice of Removal ¶ 7.) It also averred that it was a "Singapore corporation" and therefore a "citizen of a foreign state." (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.) Defendant did not allege its principal place of business.

On December 28, 2012, defendant filed an Amended Notice of Removal. This Amended Notice was filed thirty-two days after the initial filing of the Complaint, and defendant did not seek leave of the Court to amend its Notice of Removal. In this Amended Notice, defendant excised its allegation that it was a limited liability company with a members in, inter alia, Pennsylvania. Instead, defendant asserted that it was a "Singapore corporation" and "[a]s such, it is a citizen of a foreign state." (Amended Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8, 9.) However, it once again failed to allege its principal place of business.

On January 22, 2013, plaintiff filed its Motion for Remand. Plaintiff argues that the notice of removal was fundamentally defective for numerous reasons. Although plaintiff admits it is a Texas citizen and that complete diversity exists between the parties, it argues that defendant is a citizen of Pennsylvania, and therefore the "Forum Defendant Rule" codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) bars removal of the case on diversity grounds.

On February 15, 2013, defendant filed its opposition to the Motion for Remand and simultaneously filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Notice of Removal. In the latter motion, defendant requests leave to amend its original Notice of Removal to aver that it is a citizen of Singapore because it is a "private limited company organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore with its principal place of business in Singapore." (Def.'s Mot. to Amend at 3.)

III.LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. ยง 1441(a) provides the basis ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.