SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Helen E. Hoagland's Motion to Remand (d/e 4). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. This case will remain in the Springfield Division of the Central District of Illinois.
On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against Robert R. Hoagland and Defendant Willie J. Armor in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois.
Twenty-nine days later, on February 24, 2017, Defendant Armor filed a Notice of Removal (d/e 1). Defendant Armor claims that he is a citizen of Texas and that Plaintiff and Robert Hoagland are citizens of Illinois. Defendant Armor further claims that the amount in controversy in this matter is in excess of $75,000 given that Plaintiff's claimed medical bills total more than $80,000. Therefore, according to Defendant Armor, this case became removable on January 27, 2017, the date of Robert Hoagland's dismissal as a defendant, based on complete diversity among the remaining parties.
On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (d/e 4) and a Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remand (d/e 5). Plaintiff does not dispute that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Further, Plaintiff admits that she and Robert Hoagland are citizens of Illinois. Plaintiff's sole argument for remand to state court is that Robert Hoagland remains a defendant in this case because the state court's Order conditioned Robert Hoagland's dismissal as a defendant on the execution of a release and a payment to Plaintiff in the amount of $100,000. According to Plaintiff, because Robert Hoagland has not made the $100,000 payment, Robert Hoagland is still a defendant in this case, meaning there is not complete diversity among the parties.
On March 23, 2017, Defendant Armor filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (d/e 8). Defendant Armor argues that the state court's Order did not condition Robert Hoagland's dismissal as a defendant on any future action. Rather, the release and payment were conditions of Robert Hoagland's discharge from any and all contribution liability. Therefore, according to Defendant Armor, Robert Hoagland has not been a defendant in this case since January 26, 2017, and complete diversity exists.
In addition, Defendant Armor contends that even if the Order is read as Plaintiff suggests—that Robert Hoagland's dismissal as a defendant was conditioned on the execution of a release and a payment of $100,000 to Plaintiff—this case is still removable. In support of this alternative argument, Defendant Armor points to the Release of All Claims (d/e 8-1), signed by Plaintiff on January 31, 2017, in which Plaintiff acknowledges the receipt of $100,000 and releases Robert Hoagland from liability.
District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Any civil action brought in state court may be removed to federal court if the action is one over which the district courts have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). If a case filed in state court is not immediately removable, "a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of an . . . order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
In a case where removal is based on diversity among the parties, the Court must determine whether complete diversity existed at the time the notice of removal was filed.
The plain language of the state court's Order does not support Plaintiff's position that Robert Hoagland remained a defendant in this case after January 26, 2007. The final sentence of the Order reads as follows: "Further, Plaintiff's claims relevant to this litigation against Robert R. Hoagland
Even if the Court were to adopt Plaintiff's reading of the January 2017 state court's Order, the Court would still find remand inappropriate here. The release Plaintiff signed on January 31, 2017, contains the following language: "Plaintiff being of age, for the sole consideration of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100 DOLLARS ($100,000.00)
Because Robert Hoagland was dismissed as a defendant on January 26, 2017, complete diversity among the remaining parties existed on February 24, 2017, the date on which Defendant Armor filed the Notice of Removal. As the amount-in-controversy requirement is also met, the Court has jurisdiction over this case, thereby making remand inappropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Helen E. Hoagland's Motion to Remand (d/e 4) is DENIED. This case will remain in the Springfield Division of the Central District of Illinois. If Plaintiff still wishes to move to strike Defendant Armor's affirmative defenses, she shall file a new motion to that effect by Monday, July 31, 2017.