Tree claims it was a “defendant” at the time of removal because the only claim left was the Arndts’ counterclaim. Apparently, this is the reason Green Tree self-realigned itself as a defendant when it filed the notice of removal. However, regardless of the merits of its realignment argument, a party cannot realign itself. Realignment must be done by a court. Realignment is usually associated with a federal court’s attempt to discern whether diversity jurisdiction is proper. See, e.g., Development Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Hous. & Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156, 159 (3d Cir.1995) (explaining principles of realignment in determining jurisdiction). The principle has also been employed by numerous courts in the removal context. See, e.g., Hill v. Maton, 944 F.Supp. 695, 698 n. 4 (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>); Kenko Int’l, Inc. v. Asolo S.r.l., 838
recognizing that courts may disregard state law labels and procedures thereby realigning the parties according to their real interests in the action at the time of removal holding that the court of appeals in applying state law on appeal of a diversity action must apply law of the state as it existed at the time of its decision rather than as it stood at the time the case was decided in district court recognizing that state courts may be able to limit the retroactive effect of their declarations of state law holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal