Heintz

Heintz v. Ohio Cas. Ins.

Good Law
112 F. Supp. 199·1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2742
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 4, 1953No. 13892California983 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Tolin, J.

This case was removed to the District Court from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. Jurisdiction in this Court is claimed to exist because of diversity of citienship. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 :

As this case originated in a California court, if there is not total diversity, the litigation should be remanded to the state court. Diversity must appear from the allegations of an appropriate pleading, usually the complaint. Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 2 Cir., 61 F.2d 115 , affirmed 289 U.S. 103 , 53 S.Ct. 549 , 77 L.Ed. 1062 .

The complaint, which has now beer, superseded by an amended complaint, named but one defendant, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, a corporation, and alleged that said defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Ohio. The petition for removal to this Court alleges that the controversy is wholly between citizens of different states in that petitioning defendant, then the only defendant, “***js***a citizen of the State of Ohio * * * ” and that “ * * * the plaintiff * * * at the time of the commencement of said action and ever since has been and still is a citizen of the State of California; *…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.