IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
January 28, 2013
GE BETZ, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, AND APPELLEE. ZEE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, BMO HARRIS BANK,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court has received a copy of, and is of course bound by, our Court of Appeals' January 23, 2013 order in this case. Most particularly, if this Court had perceived the absence of a proper removal by Zee Company, Incorporated ("Zee") to be as taught at page 3 of the order, its obligation once GE Betz, Incorporated ("GE Betz") had raised the "forum defendant" issue would have been the swift issuance of an order remanding the case to its state court place of origin, an action that it has been called upon to take and has taken on a number of occasions during its tenure on the bench.
That step would have left it to the state court to resolve a key substantive issue as between GE Betz and citation respondent BMO Harris Bank ("Harris"): Whether judgment creditor GE Betz, presumptively a junior lienholder on judgment debtor Zee's assets, could register a judgment obtained in another jurisdiction, serve a citation on the holder of the presumptively senior lien on the same debtor's assets (in this case, Harris), and thus paralyze the latter's ability to enforce its senior lien against the debtor.*fn1
It would seem that the necessary improvidence of the removal would preclude the determination of that substantive claim by any federal court, even including the Court of Appeals.*fn2 That said, and to enable this action to proceed on the merits before the state court that the Order has essentially held to be the proper forum, this Court respectfully requests that the Court of Appeals remand the action to this Court so that it may carry out its obligation to remand the case to the state court.