Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/292

 546US1

Unit: $U10

[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005

81

Syllabus

LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. et al. v. ROCHE et ux. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 04–712. Argued October 11, 2005—Decided November 29, 2005 Title 28 U. S. C. § 1441 authorizes the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court when the state-court action is one that could have been brought, originally, in federal court. When federal-court jurisdic­ tion is predicated on the parties’ diversity of citizenship, see § 1332, re­ moval is permissible “only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which [the] action [was] brought.” § 1441(b). Christophe and Juanita Roche, plaintiffs below, respondents here, leased an apartment in a Virginia complex, Westﬁeld Village, managed by Lincoln Property Company (Lincoln). The Roches commenced suit in state court against diverse defendants, including Lincoln, asserting serious medical ailments from their exposure to toxic mold in their apartment, and alleging loss, theft, or destruction of personal property left in the care of Lincoln and the mold treatment ﬁrm during the remediation process. The Roches identiﬁed themselves as Virginia citi­ zens and defendant Lincoln as a Texas corporation. Defendants re­ moved the litigation to a Federal District Court, invoking that court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. In their consolidated federal-court complaint, the Roches identiﬁed themselves and Lincoln just as they did in their state-court complaints. Lincoln, in its answer, admitted that it managed Westﬁeld Village, and did not seek to avoid liability by assert­ ing that some other entity was responsible for managing the property. After discovery, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for sum­ mary judgment, but before judgment was entered, the Roches moved to remand the case to state court. The District Court denied the mo­ tion, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding the removal improper on the ground that Lincoln failed to show the nonexistence of an afﬁliated Virginia entity that was a real party in interest. Held: Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citi­ zenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State. It is not incumbent on the named defendants to negate the existence of a potential defendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity. Pp. 88–94.