Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00955/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00955-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHRYN BAUMAN RUBENSTEIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 1:06cv955-MHT

BETTY JO BAUMAN, ) (WO)

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kathryn Bauman Rubenstein filed this

lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama,

charging defendants Betty Jo Bauman, Marilyn Bauman

Granger, Barbara Bauman Kamensky, Jeffrey Bauman, Regions

Bank, Regions Mortgage, Brian Bickhaus, Richard Fox,

Robert Birmingham, Pat Black, G. David Johnson, Don P.

Bennett, Nanette Pitcher, Pitcher And Associates, Dianne

Ream, D. Ream Properties, Ann Chandler, Marie W. Bauman,

Allan E. Kamensky, Bennie Wayne Granger, Ross Kennedy,

McDaniel and Associates, Lexa Dowling, Faye Ferrell, Doug

McKeown, Wallace Cooley, Tom Zeigenfelder, Zeigooley,

Case 1:06-cv-00955-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Inc., Margaret Johnston, Houston County Department of

Human Resources, Michael Conaway, Carl E. Jones, Jr., D.

Bryan Jordan, Boyd Horn, PeopleSouth Bank, Community Bank

and Trust, Midsouth Bank, Granger Limited, Tommy

Scarborough, and Jere Segrest with multiple counts of

fraud arising under state and federal law. 

Plaintiff Rubenstein removed this lawsuit from state

to federal court, invoking this court’s jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal-question) and 1332

(diversity). For reason that follow, two motions to

remand filed by certain defendants on October 25 and 27,

2006, should be granted.

Subsection (a) of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which governs the

removal of lawsuits from state to federal courts,

provides in pertinent part a follows:

“Except as otherwise expressly provided

by Act of Congress, any civil action

brought in a State court of which the

district courts of the United States

have original jurisdiction, may be

removed by the defendant or the

defendants, to the district court of the

United States for the district and

Case 1:06-cv-00955-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 4
3

division embracing the place where such

action is pending.” 

(emphasis added). Thus, by its express and unambiguous

terms, this provision authorizes defendants only, and not

plaintiffs, to remove a suit to federal court once it has

been initially filed in state court. See Chicago, R. I.

& P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 580 (1954) (“Here the

railroad is the plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), ...

and cannot remove. The remand was proper.”); F.D.I.C. v.

S & I 85-1, Ltd., 22 F.3d 1070, 1073 (11th Cir. 1994)

("The general removal statute [§ 1441(a)] expressly

limits the power of removal to defendants.").

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court that the motions to remand (doc. nos. 2 & 6)

are granted and this cause is remanded in its entirety to

the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama, pursuant to

28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c), for want of subject-matter

jurisdiction.

Case 1:06-cv-00955-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 4
It is further ORDERED that the other motions to

remand (doc. nos. 5, 8, 11, 20, 22 & 24) are denied as moot.

It is further ORDERED that all other pending motions

are left for resolution by the state court after remand.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take

appropriate steps to effect the remand of this entire

case.

DONE this the 2nd day of November, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00955-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 11/02/06 Page 4 of 4