686 F.3d 62 (2nd Cir. 2012), 11-189-cv, Pietrangelo v. Alvas Corp.
|Citation:||686 F.3d 62|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||James E. PIETRANGELO, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALVAS CORPORATION, dba Pine Street Deli, George Alvanos, Christine Alvanos, Evan Alvanos, John Doe, City of Burlington, Emmett B. Helrich, in his personal and official capacities, Wade Labrecque, in his personal and official capacities, William Sorrell, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||James E. Pietrangelo, II, pro se, Avon, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Robin Ober Cooley, Pierson Wadhams Quinn Yates & Coffrin, Burlington, VT, for Defendants-Appellees Alvas Corporation, dba Pine Street Deli, George Alvanos, Christine Alvanos, Evan Alvanos. Pietro J. Lynn, Lynn, Lynn & Blackman, ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: WESLEY, CARNEY, Circuit Judges, and MAUSKOPF, District Judge.[**]|
|Case Date:||July 09, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Submitted: Feb. 10, 2012.
Plaintiff-Appellant James E. Pietrangelo, II,1 appeals from a December 15, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Reiss, J. ), granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissing all of Pietrangelo's federal and state law claims brought against Defendants. Pietrangelo filed his complaint in Vermont state court, and Defendants removed the action to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Pietrangelo contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to remand to state court because, by his calculation, Defendants' notice of removal and consent thereto were untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Specifically, he argues that the thirty-day removal period began when service was effected on the first defendant, Attorney General William H. Sorrell, and that later-served defendants were untimely when they filed their notice of removal well beyond that time. We disagree and conclude that Defendants City of Burlington, Emmett B. Helrich, and Wade Labrecque (the " City Defendants" ) timely filed their notice of removal because their filing occurred within thirty days from when they received service and that all earlier-served defendants properly consented to removal. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Pietrangelo's motion to remand the action to state court.2
We recite only the limited procedural history relevant to our discussion. Pietrangelo
filed his complaint in state court on July 31, 2008. Attorney General Sorrell waived service of process on August 21, 2008. However, the remaining defendants— Alvas Corporation, George Alvanos, Christine Alvanos, and Evan Alvanos (the " Alvas Defendants" ) and the City Defendants— did not waive service of process. On February 24, 2009, Pietrangelo served the Alvas Defendants with a summons and complaint. On February 24 and 25, 2009, Pietrangelo served the City Defendants.
On March 16, 2009, the City Defendants filed a notice of removal, in which counsel for the City Defendants represented that the other defendants had consented to removal and would formally notify the court of their consent. On March 17, 2009 and March 24, 2009, respectively, the Alvas Defendants and Attorney General Sorrell submitted letters to the district court confirming their consent to the City Defendants' removal motion. The Clerk's Office, however, returned each letter for failing to comply with the format requirements of Local Rule 5.1. The Alvas Defendants and Attorney General Sorrell then reiterated their...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP