jurisdictional amount of $ 15,000.00 " (emphasis added).
This Court's opinion in Navarro v. LTV Steel Co., 750 F. Supp. 928 (N.D.Ill. 1990) speaks directly to that problem and holds (consistently with the principle stated in n.3 of this opinion) that remand is required under the circumstances. That is the second jurisdictional problem faced by Keller here, notwithstanding its counsel's having attached as Notice Ex. C a Chicago Sun-Times newspaper article that identifies Maki's injury as a broken back sustained when the assertedly defective ladder manufactured and sold by Keller gave way while he was using it during a construction project. Just as in Navarro, even a high degree of probability that Maki's claim may exceed the federal jurisdictional amount does not suffice for this Court's retention of jurisdiction at this point.
And the same newspaper article as well as Complaint Count II identifies the third and most serious problem with Keller's removal effort: Volsted's injuries (assertedly sustained in a wholly separate accident) are merely described as injuries to his shoulder, wrist and neck -- a description that makes the existence of the $ 50,000 jurisdictional amount in controversy even more speculative in his case. Under the recently enacted provisions of Section 1367(b), Congress has reconfirmed that there is no pendent party jurisdiction when the basis for federal jurisdiction rests on diversity (see Siegel, Changes in Federal Jurisdiction and Practice Under the New (Dec. 1, 1990) Judicial Improvements Act, 133 F.R.D. 61, 65 (1991)). And the simultaneously-enacted amendment of Section 1441(c) correspondingly permits the removal of a case that contains a nonremovable claim (for this purpose, presumably Volsted's) only if it is joined with a removable federal-question claim, not one involving only diversity of citizenship ( id. at 75-77). Thus even if Maki's claim ultimately proved to be removable because the amount in controversy on his claim was large enough, Volsted's still would not be -- and so this entire action could not be removed at all.
Accordingly this Court is constrained to find that "it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction" (Section 1447(c)). That means this Court is compelled to remand the case (id.), although under the circumstances such remand is necessarily without prejudice to a potential renewed removal at such future time as the requirements of Section 1332(a) may in fact be satisfied. Finally, there is no reason to delay the remand under this District Court's General Rule 30(b), so that the Clerk of this District Court is directed to mail the certified copy of the remand order forthwith.