Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    Tns Cequint

    Uploaded by

    John Cook
    Defendants removed a civil action from state to federal court. The removal was based on diversity jurisdiction as the plaintiff is a Washington trust and one defendant is a Delaware corporation. The other defendant was argued to be fraudulently joined as there is no possibility of liability against that party.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tns Cequint

    Uploaded by

    John Cook
    5K views30 pages
    Defendants removed a civil action from state to federal court. The removal was based on diversity jurisdiction as the plaintiff is a Washington trust and one defendant is a Delaware corporation. The other defendant was argued to be fraudulently joined as there is no possibility of liability against that party.

    Original Description:

    tns-cequint

    Original Title

    tns-cequint

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Defendants removed a civil action from state to federal court. The removal was based on diversity jurisdiction as the plaintiff is a Washington trust and one defendant is a Delaware corporation. The other defendant was argued to be fraudulently joined as there is no possibility of liability against that party.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    5K views30 pages

    Tns Cequint

    Uploaded by

    John Cook
    Defendants removed a civil action from state to federal court. The removal was based on diversity jurisdiction as the plaintiff is a Washington trust and one defendant is a Delaware corporation. The other defendant was argued to be fraudulently joined as there is no possibility of liability against that party.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 1 of 30

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants TNS, Inc. and Cequint, Inc., hereby remove the above-entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King (Cause No. 12-240225-6 SEA) to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441, and 1446. In further support of this Notice of Removal, defendants state: 1. On or about December 20, 2012, plaintiff Project Thunder Shareholder v. TNS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and CEQUINT, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PROJECT THUNDER SHAREHOLDER LIQUIDATING TRUST, in its capacity as Shareholder Representative, Plaintiff, Case No.: 13-cv-00249 NOTICE OF REMOVAL

    Liquidating Trust commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King titled Project Thunder Shareholder Liquidating Trust v. TNS, Inc. and Cequint, Inc., at Cause No. 12-2-40225-6 SEA.
    NOTICE OF REMOVAL - 1
    LAW OFFICES OF

    COZEN OCONNOR
    A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1201 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 5200 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101-3071

    (206) 340-1000

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 30

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

    2.

    Defendants were served with the Summons and Complaint on or after

    January 24, 2013. 3. A true copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon defendants in such

    action are being filed as an attachment hereto. 4. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has

    original jurisdiction over this case because: a. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and

    costs, as the Complaint avers that defendants actions have unlawfully deprived plaintiff of up to $62.5 million in earnout payments under a merger agreement; and b. The matter in controversy is between citizens of different states.

    Plaintiff, according to the Complaint, is a trust created under Washington law. Defendant TNS, Inc. is a citizen of both Delaware, its state of incorporation, and Virginia, where it has its principal place of business. c. Defendant Cequint, Inc. has been fraudulently joined as a defendant, and

    its citizenship should therefore be disregarded for purposes of diversity analysis. Under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, a court may disregard a non-diverse party such as Cequint, Inc., if the court determines that there is no possibility that the plaintiff can recover against the nondiverse party. Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318-19 (9th Cir. 1998); Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559, 561 (9th Cir. 2007). Under this approach, the joinder of a nondiverse defendant may be treated as "fraudulent" or "sham" where a nominal cause of action is stated, but there is no possible basis for imposing liability. Parks v. New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 1962). A trial judge may "pierce the pleadings" and consider summary judgment-type evidence in the record. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 106768 (9th Cir.2001); Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 2003).

    NOTICE OF REMOVAL - 2

    LAW OFFICES OF

    COZEN OCONNOR
    A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1201 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 5200 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101-3071

    (206) 340-1000

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 3 of 30

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

    e.

    There is no possible basis for imposing liability against Cequint, Inc. in

    this case because Cequint, Inc. is not alleged to have committed any of the acts alleged in the Complaint. The only claims as to which Cequint, Inc. is named as a defendant are for tortious interference and declaratory relief. f. As to the claim of tortious interference, both Delaware and Washington

    law prohibit claims for tortious interference with the defendants own contract, and Cequint, Inc. is a party to the contract with which it is alleged to have interfered. See Reninger v. Dept of Corrections, 134 Wn.2d 437, 448, 951 P.2d 782 (1998) (stating that a party to a contract cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract); Tenneco Automotive Inc. v. El Paso Corp., No. 08C-04-042 JAP, 2007 WL 92621, at *5 (Del.Ch. Apr. 30, 2009) (stating that [a] defendant cannot interfere with its own contract). As such, Plaintiff has no basis to recover against Cequint, Inc. for tortious interference. g. As to the claim for declaratory relief, the only controversy at issue is

    whether the actions of TNS, Inc., in its management of Cequint, Inc., are unlawful. Cequint, Inc.s conduct is not at issue. Thus, Plaintiff cannot assert any possible claim against Cequint, Inc. for declaratory relief. h. Accordingly, this Court should disregard Cequint, Inc. as a party in this

    case for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is being filed within

    30 days after service of the Summons and Complaint on defendants. 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), this Notice of Removal is being filed with the

    Clerk of Court, Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, and is being served on plaintiff. 7. Intradistrict Assignment: Defendants are choosing to remove this action to the

    Seattle Division because the Complaint avers that the claim arose primarily in King County.
    NOTICE OF REMOVAL - 3
    LAW OFFICES OF

    COZEN OCONNOR
    A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1201 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 5200 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101-3071

    (206) 340-1000

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 4 of 30

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

    WHEREFORE, defendants pray that an order be entered that Cause No. 12-2-40225-6 SEA of the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King be removed to this Court for further proceedings, and that this Court take jurisdiction herein and make such further orders as may be just and proper. DATED this 12th day of February, 2013. COZEN O'CONNOR

    By:

    /s/ William F. Knowles William F. Knowles, WSBA No. 17212 COZEN O'CONNOR 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: 206.340.1000 Toll Free Phone: 1.800.423.1950 Facsimile: 206.621.8783 Email: [email protected] John B. Williams (pro hac vice motion to be filed) COZEN O'CONNOR The Army and Navy Club Building 1627 I Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20006-4007 Telephone: 202.912.4800 Toll Free Phone: 1.800.540.1355 Facsimile: 202.861.1905 Attorneys for Defendants

    NOTICE OF REMOVAL - 4

    LAW OFFICES OF

    COZEN OCONNOR
    A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1201 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 5200 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101-3071

    (206) 340-1000

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 5 of 30

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    NOTICE OF REMOVAL - 5
    SEATTLE\1453431\2 331622.000

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 12, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing document via first-class mail, postage prepaid, to: John Du Wors, Esq. Newman Du Wors LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, Washington 98101 DATED this 12th day of February, 2013. COZEN O'CONNOR

    By:

    /s/ William F. Knowles William F. Knowles, WSBA No. 17212 COZEN O'CONNOR 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206.340.1000 Toll Free Phone: 1.800.423.1950 Facsimile: 206.621.8783

    LAW OFFICES OF

    COZEN OCONNOR
    A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1201 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 5200 SEATTLE, W ASHINGTON 98101-3071

    (206) 340-1000

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 6 of 30

    ATTACHMENTS

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 7 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 8 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 9 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 10 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 11 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 12 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 13 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 14 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 15 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 16 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 17 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 18 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 19 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 20 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 21 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 22 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 23 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 24 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 25 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 26 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 27 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 28 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 29 of 30

    Case 2:13-cv-00249-JPD Document 1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 30 of 30

    You might also like