HomeCase briefs › Civil Procedure

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets

Supreme Court of the United States · 1941 · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedureRemoval JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdictionremovaldiversitycounterclaimplaintiff removaldefendant only

Facts

Respondent, a Texas citizen and defendant in Texas state court, filed a counterclaim or cross-action against petitioner, the non-citizen plaintiff, seeking more than $3,000 in damages for breach of a contract separate from the debt alleged in petitioner’s original suit. Petitioner removed the entire cause to federal district court on diversity grounds. For purposes of decision, the Court assumed the removal proceedings were timely and regular, that the counterclaim was an independent cause of action, and that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied. The only question was whether a plaintiff against whom such a counterclaim is asserted may remove as a "defendant" under the removal statute.

Issue

Whether a state-court plaintiff may remove a suit to federal district court under § 28 of the Judicial Code on diversity grounds when the state-court defendant files a counterclaim asserting an independent cause of action and seeking affirmative relief against the plaintiff.

Rule

Under § 28 of the Judicial Code, removal on the grounds there specified is available only to the "defendant or defendants" in the suit. A plaintiff who chose the state forum does not become a removable "defendant" merely because the opposing party files a counterclaim against it, and the removal statute must be construed according to federal criteria, strictly and independently of state characterizations of parties or claims.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Lakeview Components, Inc., an Illinois corporation, sued Nora Benton, a citizen of Oklahoma, in Oklahoma state court for unpaid invoices. Benton answered and asserted a counterclaim for $400,000 based on a separate supply agreement, seeking affirmative relief against Lakeview.

Assuming diversity and amount in controversy are otherwise satisfied, may Lakeview remove the case to federal court under the ordinary removal statute solely because it is now defending against Benton's counterclaim?

Explanation. Removal under the ordinary statute is available only to the 'defendant or defendants.' An original plaintiff that chose the state forum does not become a removable defendant just because the state-court defendant files a counterclaim seeking affirmative relief, even if the counterclaim is separate and jurisdictionally sufficient. The rule turns on federal statutory party status, not practical role reversal. (Derived from Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets (1941).)