noting that § 1441(b)(2) “precludes removal on the basis of in-state citizenship only when the defendant has been properly joined and served”
How later courts described this case
- noting that § 1441(b)(2) “precludes removal on the basis of in-state citizenship only when the defendant has been properly joined and served”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROY PERSINKO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 21-17352 (MAS) (TJB)
© MEMORANDUM OPINION
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF
EDUCATION ef al, .
Defendants.
SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Roy Persinko’s (“Persinko”) Motion to
Remand this case back to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hunterdon County, Civil Division.
(ECF No. 5.) Defendants John Sirotnak (“Sirotnak”), the Clinton Township Board of Education
(the “Board”), and Spruce Run School (the “School,” and collectively “Defendants”) do not
oppose Persinko’s Motion. Having considered Persinko’s submission, the Court decides this
matter without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons below, the Court
remands this action.
L BACKGROUND
Only the procedural facts are relevant for disposition of this matter. This case arrived to
the Court by way of Defendants’ removal, which invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1.) Persinko is a California resident; Defendants are New Jersey
citizens. (Compl. fff 1, 4-5, 8, ECF No. 5-3.) Persinko served Sirotnak on September 16, 2021, and
served the Board on September 20, 2021. (See PI.’s Mot. Ex. B, Sirotnak Aff. of Service, ECF No.
5-4; Pl.’s Mot. Ex. C, Board Aff. of Service, ECF No. 5-5.) Persinko has not served the School.
(Pl.’s Moving Br. 1, ECF No. 5-1.) Defendants timely filed their notice of removal on September
22, 2021. (ECF No. 1.)
Il. DISCUSSION
A straightforward application of the forum-defendant rule resolves this case. Under that
rule, “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not
be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of
the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Defendants’ removal is
improper under this rule. Defendants are New Jersey citizens that need not fear the “likelihood of
local bias” because that bias is “too remote to warrant removal.” Fields v. Organon USA Inc., No.
07-2922, 2007 WL 4365312, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2007) (citing Dresser Indus., Inc. v.
Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 106 F.3d 494, 499 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor does snap removal
save Defendants because Persinko properly served at least two of them before they removed. See
Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 2018) (noting that
§ 1441(b)(2) “precludes removal on the basis of in-state citizenship only when the defendant has
been properly joined and served”),
Tl. CONCLUSION
The Court grants Persinko’s Motion to Remand and remands this case to the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Hunterdon County, Civil Division. The Court will issue an order consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE