action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine a defendants were not the same parties as the original state court plaintiffs, and where the counterclaim itself is separate and independent from the original claim, then removal is appropriate. Walker 142 F.3d at 816-17. Both requirements set forth in Walker are satisfied here. The removing parties in this case are separate legal entities that do not include the original plaintiff. The counterclaim is separate and independent from the original claim filed by plaintiff (whether a claim is legitimately separate and independent hinges on whether it involves an obligation distinct from the nonremovable claims in the case). See American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 14, 71 S.Ct. 534, 540, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951) (<HOLDING>) Removing defendants’ allegations of FLSA
holding where there is a single wrong to plaintiff for which relief is sought arising from an interlocked series of transactions there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under  1441c holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct recognizing a cause of action where there is an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress arising from  special circumstances which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious