888 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1989), 88-8639, Wilson v. General Motors Corp.

Docket Nº:88-8639.
Citation:888 F.2d 779
Party Name:Corinthia Louise WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:November 16, 1989
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 779

888 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1989)

Corinthia Louise WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-8639.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

November 16, 1989

Page 780

H. Sanders Carter, Jr. and Anthony J. McGinley, Carter & Ansley, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Lanny B. Bridgers and Sandra E. Strippoli, King & Spalding, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before CLARK and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:

FACTS:

In 1984, Corinthia Louise Wilson sued General Motors Corporation ("GMC") in state court, alleging that she was injured while servicing the cooling system of a bus. Wilson also named as defendants John Does A, B, and C, alleging that GMC and the Doe defendants were jointly liable for the allegedly defective design and manufacture of the bus. The complaint contained no information on the residence or citizenship of the Doe defendants or on Wilson's residence or citizenship.

On January 23, 1986, GMC received Wilson's responses to its Requests for Admission. Although Wilson had earlier revealed her domicile to GMC, these responses disclosed for the first time that she had no information that any person or entity other than GMC would be a proper defendant in this case. GMC filed a removal petition the next day.

On February 24, 1986, Wilson filed a motion to remand the action to state court, claiming that GMC's removal petition was untimely. In her motion, Wilson admitted complete diversity and satisfaction of the jurisdictional amount. The district court declined to remand.

After trial, the jury returned a verdict for GMC, and final judgment was entered on July 20, 1988. Wilson appealed on the sole ground that the district court erroneously denied her motion to remand. We affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION:

On November 19, 1988, thirty-three months after removal, three months after entry of the judgment on the jury verdict, and three months after Wilson filed her notice of appeal, the President signed the Judicial Improvements & Access to Justice Act, Pub.L. No. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4669 (1988) (the "Act").

Section 1016 of the Act changes procedures allowing removal of cases to federal court. Of interest here is Section 1016(b)(2)(B), which adds a one-year limitation on removal under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1446(b):

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service of process or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.

If the case stated by the initial pleadings is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP