ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has ordered a lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution in a nursing home negligence case to be returned to Missouri state court, ruling that the defendants improperly removed the case and must pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs.
In an April 23 order, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted a motion to remand filed by LTC Management Services and Health Systems, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the parties were not completely diverse.
The plaintiffs allege that several defendants, including attorney Jonathan Steele and associated law firms, maliciously prosecuted a prior nursing home negligence lawsuit by using false affidavits and fabricated trial exhibits to keep the plaintiffs involved in that litigation.
The defendants deny those allegations.
The case was initially filed in Jackson Circuit Court, before being removed to federal court by the Steele defendants, who argued that diversity jurisdiction applied.
However, the court determined that one of the defendants, Michelle White, is a Missouri citizen, the same state as the plaintiffs, which defeats the requirement for complete diversity under federal law.
The Steele defendants attempted to rely on a legal strategy known as “snap removal,” filing for removal before White had been formally served in the case. They argued that because she had not yet been served, her citizenship should not be considered in determining diversity jurisdiction.
The court rejected this argument, citing controlling precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit establishing that the citizenship of all named parties, regardless of whether they have been served, must be considered when determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
The court further noted that even if snap removal might allow a defendant to bypass certain procedural restrictions, it cannot cure a lack of complete diversity.
Without complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants, the federal court lacks original jurisdiction, making removal improper.
In opposing the motion to remand, the Steele defendants raised a new argument that White had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction and that her citizenship should therefore be disregarded.
The court declined to consider this claim, stating that it was not included in the original notice of removal or the amended notice of removal and was therefore untimely.
Beyond remanding the case, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs under federal statute, concluding that the defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division case number: 4:25-cv-00926
