C.L.B. v. Frye, 606CV-251ORL-28JGG.
Decision Date | 01 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 606CV-251ORL-28JGG.,606CV-251ORL-28JGG. |
Citation | 469 F.Supp.2d 1115 |
Parties | C.L.B., Freddie Turner, Loretha Turner, Plaintiffs, v. Leslie FRYE, Tony Manzolillo, Holly Bernard, Melinda King, Lisbeth Bochette, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Tracey K. McPharlin, Howard M. Talenfeld, Colodny, Fass, Talenfeld, Karlinsky & Abate, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs.
James M. Kloss, Ronald L. Harrop, Cooney, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Richards & O'Connor, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 13)2 arguing that the removal of this case from state court was untimely under the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Plaintiffs urge me to apply the "first-served rule" and remand to state court because one of the Defendants, Tony Manzolillo, failed to join in the removal within thirty days from the date the first Defendant was served. Defendants contend, however, that the case was properly removed under the "last-served rule"3 because Defendant Manzolillo joined in the removal within thirty days of the date on which he was served. Having considered the parties' arguments on this point, the Motion to Remand must be denied.
Plaintiffs originally filed suit in circuit court in Volusia County on November 15, 2005, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida common law. On February 1, 2006, Lisbeth Bochette became the first of the five Defendants served;4 within the following two weeks Defendants Melinda King and Holly Bernard were also served. On March 1, 2006 — twenty-eight days after Defendant Bochette was served — Defendants Bochette, King, and Bernard filed a Joint Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) asserting that the other two Defendants (Manzolillo and Frye) would join in the removal once they were served.5 At the time the Joint Notice of Removal was filed, the removing Defendants did not know that Defendant Manzolillo had been served just hours earlier.6 Instead of immediately filing the return of service on Defendant Manzolillo in this court, Plaintiffs waited more than thirty days from the date the first Defendant had been served to file the return in state court.
On March 13, 2006, thirteen days after Defendant Manzolillo was served, Defendants Manzolillo and Frye filed their Joinder in Notice of Removal (Doc. 8) consenting to and joining in `the removal noticed by the other Defendants.7 Thus, Manzolillo's consent was filed after the thirty-day period following service on Defendant Bochette, but well before the expiration of the thirty-day period from the time he himself was served.
Plaintiffs argue that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) requires that the notice of removal "be filed within thirty days of the date that the first defendant who can remove is served" and that "all then served defendants join in or consent to the removal within that thirty day period." (Doc. 13 ¶¶ 4, 5.) The statute does not contain such a requirement, and, in fact, does not directly address cases involving multiple defendants at all. Instead, the relevant portion of the statute provides:
The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (emphasis added).
The statute clearly explains that a single defendant must seek removal within thirty days of service, but it provides no guidance as to when the time for removal begins to run for subsequently served defendants. When multiple defendants must join in petitions for removal is a question that Congress has left to the courts. The courts, however, have resolved the problem of multiple defendants in an inconsistent fashion — with some adopting the "first-served rule" and others following the "last-served rule." When applied, these rules produce very different results.
The genesis of the "first-served rule" was Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988). In Getty, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that the thirty-day removal period begins to run when the first defendant is served, even though the statute itself is silent regarding multiple defendants. Getty concluded:
In cases involving multiple defendants, the thirty-day period begins to run as soon as the first defendant is served .... It follows that since all served defendants must join in the petition, and since the petition must be submitted within thirty days of service on the first defendant, all served defendants must join in the petition no later than thirty days from the day on which the first defendant was served.
Id. at 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). As a general premise, under the "first-served rule," defendants who are properly served within thirty days of the first defendant's service must join in the removal petition. The "failure to do so renders the petition defective." Id. at 1262. Under the facts of Getty, however, the application of the first-served rule did not produce an inequitable result.8 Nonetheless, recognizing the potential for harsh results, other decisions provide that exceptional circumstances may sometimes require relief from strict application of the rule in order to achieve equitable results. See Milstead Supply Co. v. Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F.Supp. 569, 573 (W.D.Tex.1992) ( ); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 482 (5th Cir.1986) ( ).
Other circuits have rejected the "first-served rule." Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753, 755-57 (8th Cir.2001); Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527, 532-33 (6th Cir.1999); McKinney v. Bd. of Trs. of Mayland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 926-28 (4th Cir.1992). In McKinney, the Fourth Circuit adopted the "last-served rule," holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), each individual defendant has "thirty days from the time they are served with process or with a complaint to join in an otherwise valid removal petition." 955 F.2d at 928. The McKinney court observed that the purpose of the removal process is to protect defendants, and this purpose "could be rather easily overcome by tactical maneuvering by plaintiffs," who could wait until the thirty-day period had almost run before serving other defendants. Id. Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit, addressing a different removal-related issue, has endorsed this reasoning, Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir.2005), and observed an admonishment from the United Stated Supreme Court that "the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court." Id. (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186, 27 S.Ct. 184, 51 L.Ed. 430 (1907)).
The Sixth and Eighth Circuits have gone even further in protecting the rights of defendants. They have interpreted § 1446(b) as allowing each defendant thirty days from service to file a notice of removal, regardless of whether other defendants have so filed. Marano, 254 F.3d 753 ( ); Brierly, 184 F.3d 527 ( same).
The Eleventh Circuit has yet to weigh in on the first-served-last-served debate, Kimbrough v. City of Cocoa, No. 6:05-cv-4710, 2005 WL 1126651, at *4 ; Adams v. Charter Commens VII, LLC, 356 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1272 (M.D.Ala.2005), and the district courts within this circuit have followed both approaches. See Kimbrough, 2005 WL 1126651, at *4 ("last-served rule"); Smith v. Health Ctr. of Lake City, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1345-46 (M.D.Fla. 2003) ("first-served" rule); Collings v. E-Z Serve Convenience Stores, Inc., 936 F.Supp. 892, 895 (N.D.Fla.1996) ("last served" rule); Faulk v. Superior Indus. Ina, Inc., 851 F.Supp. 457, 459 (M.D.Fla. 1994) ("first-served" rule); Noble v. Bradford Marine, Inc., 789 F.Supp. 395, 397 (S.D.Fla.1992) ("first-served" rule). In the absence of controlling authority, I have considered both rules. Although the "first-served rule" has merit to the extent that it provides predictability and quicker determination as to whether a case will be litigated in state or federal court, the "last served rule" is more consistent with the plain reading of § 1446(b) and is more likely to produce equitable results.
As already noted, § 1446(b) is written in terms of a single defendant and makes no mention as to how time for removal should be calculated in cases with multiple defendants. The statute simply provides "notice of removal in a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant ...." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (emphasis added). The most reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barbour v. Int'l Union
...the 30–day removal period to commence upon service of the first defendant, it could have easily so provided.”); C.L.B. v. Frye, 469 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1119 (M.D.Fla.2006) (“The most reasonable construction of this provision is that each defendant—not just the first-served—has thirty days in wh......
-
Cachet Residential Builders v. Gemini Ins. Co.
...WL 22259075 (W.D.Tex. Sept. 23, 2003), and White v. Bombardier Corp., 313 F.Supp.2d 1295 (N.D.Fla.2004). See also C.L.B. v. Frye, 469 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1117 n. 5 (M.D.Fla. 2006) (relying on Murphy to note that nonserved defendants "[have] no obligation to respond to a complaint or make a deci......
-
Mitsui Lines Ltd. v. Csx Intermodal Inc.
...(the "first-served rule") or service of a subsequently-served removing defendant (the "later-served rule"). See C.L.B. v. Frye, 469 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1119 (M.D.Fla.2006) (citations omitted). The Court recognizes that other Circuits—and courts within this Circuit—have held that each defendant ......
-
Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.
...Pump & Well, Inc. v. Laibe Supply Corp., 2007 WL 3238721, at *2 (S.D.Ga. case adopting last-served defendant rule); C.L.B. v. Frye, 469 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1119-20 (M.D.Fla.2006) (following last-served defendant rule); Adams v. Charter Commc'ns. VII, LLC, 356 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1273 (M.D.Ala. 2005......
-
ABSURD OVERLAP: SNAP REMOVAL AND THE RULE OF UNANIMITY.
...a defendant who has not yet been served with process is not required to join." (citations omitted)). (107.) See C.L.B. v. Frye, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1116 n.5 (M.D. Fla. 2006) ("Prior to service, a defendant has no obligation to respond to a complaint or make a decision regarding (108.) See......