United States District Court for the District of Oregon

“ The fact that the actions of Wasco County and its Sheriff differ from those of the State is not determinative. An obvious reason exists as to why the State would find it much easier than Wasco County and the Sheriff to "act" as if Rajneeshpuram were not a city. The State's "actions" in reliance on its view that Rajneeshpuram is not a valid city merely consist of cutting off funds and services to the City. The State's "actions" are really inaction or failure to act. ”

“ Although the State has added certain allegations to the complaint to bolster its argument that this court is without jurisdiction because the federal [*4] constitutional matter arises only as a defense (e.g., the State now alleges that it is presently treating Rajneeshpuram as if it were not a legally incorporated city, and at page 19 the complaint alleges "The State of Oregon therefore contends that it has a valid constitutional defense to the state law claims of the City and its officials and residents.") ”

“ Although most realignment cases involve diversity jurisdiction issues, parties may also be realigned for purposes of determining whether "all defendants" have joined in a petition for removal as required. See Moore's, supra, AO.168 [3.-2-2] at 547. In realigning the parties, the court must place parties with the same "ultimate interest" in the outcome of the litigation on the same side. Wright & Miller, supra, at 641. Realignment [*10] is "not to be determined by mechanical rules. ”