Imco USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota
| Decision Date | 06 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-968-CIV-J-16.,89-968-CIV-J-16. |
| Parties | IMCO USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Richard C. Peper, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff.
George L. Hudspeth, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.
The above-styled cause is before the Court on Plaintiff IMCO's Motion for Remand and for Attorney's Fees, filed herein on December 19, 1989. Defendant TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA (TICM) responded to said motion on December 21, 1989. After due consideration of said motion and response thereto, the Court will remand this action to the Circuit Court of Duval County for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiff IMCO alleges that the defendant has failed to timely file its removal petition. The record indicates that the summons and complaint were served on the defendant through its assistant vice president on October 9, 1989.1
The instant action involves a claim for negligence against an insurance company. As such, there are certain state statutory provisions which govern how service of process is to be obtained.2 Defendant asserts in its Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Remand that Plaintiff has failed to properly serve process upon Defendant vis-a-vis Florida Statute § 624.422 subsection 3. Although it is true that the Plaintiff has procedurally erred in this regard, "Technicalities of state law as to the completion of service of process should be ignored, just as state law generally is disregarded when removal is considered." Kirby v. OMI Corp., 655 F.Supp. 219 (M.D.Fla.1987), quoting C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3732, at p. 516.
The federal removal statute provides in pertinent part that:
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.
It is Plaintiff's contention that the thirty-day removal period was triggered on October 3, 1989,3 when Defendant received service of process. The Court finds that the Defendant corporation was in possession "of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based" on October 9, 1989, and as such had until November 9, 1989 to remove this case to federal court.
The Defendant's challenge to the motion to remand based on the Plaintiff's technical service error is without merit. Service of process under state law does not control for removal purposes. See e.g. Perimeter Lighting, Inc. v. Karlton, 456 F.Supp. 355 (N.D.Ga.1978). What is important is that the Defendant was on notice of the pending action through receipt of the "initial pleading." To qualify as an initial pleading for removal purposes, the document received by the Defendant must contain such notice of the state proceeding that the Defendant can ascertain the removability of the action or proceeding. Tyler v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 524 F.Supp. 1211 at 1214 (W.D.Pa.1981), quoting International Equity Corp. v. Pepper and Tanner, Inc., 323 F.Supp. 1107 at 1109 (E.D.Pa.1971). The pleading included a statement of the case which allowed the Defendant to examine the basis for the action, Perimeter Lighting, Inc., 456 F.Supp. at 358, and identified the parties to the dispute and the amount of damages that Plaintiff was seeking. Tyler v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 524 F.Supp. 1211 (W.D.Pa.1981).
State statutes governing service of process must, to avoid nationwide inconsistencies, be preempted by the federal statute and its 30-day provision for removability. In the instant case, it is clear that the Defendant received the "initial pleading" on October 9, 1989, yet failed to remove the action until December 8, 1989. The fact that the Plaintiff took remedial measures to comply with Florida Statute § 624.422 is of no consequence. Furthermore, Defendant's filing of a motion to quash in State court is indicative of the Defendant's desire to stay within the State forum. The Defendant could have attacked Plaintiff's attempt to perfect service in this Court from the onset. Instead, the Defendant waited to remove the case almost a complete month beyond the period in which removal was procedurally available. The Defendant's "legal maneuvering" first in State court and then in this Court was simply inadequate to effectuate a proper removal. Consequently, Defendant's removal petition filed herein on December 8, 1989 was untimely. Kirby v. OMI Corp., 655 F.Supp. 219 (M.D.Fla.1987).
Finally, Plaintiff asks this Court to award attorney's fees and costs incurred in this removal action. Plaintiff is seeking such fees in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). That section provides that:
A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerr v. Holland America-Line Westours, Inc.
...Records, 745 F.Supp. 338 (D.Md.1990); Dawson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 736 F.Supp. 1049 (D.Colo.1990); Imco USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota, 729 F.Supp. 1322 (M.D.Fla.1990); Harding v. Allied Products Corp., 703 F.Supp. 51 (W.D.Tenn.1989); Pic-Mount Corp. v. Stoffel Seals Corp., ......
-
Shoemaker v. GAF Corp.
...Horse Records, 745 F.Supp. 338 (D.Md.1990); Dawson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 736 F.Supp. 1049 (D.Colo.1990); IMCO USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co., 729 F.Supp. 1322 (M.D.Fla.1990); Uhles v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 715 F.Supp. 297 (C.D.Cal.1989); Pic-Mount Corp. v. Stoffel Seals Corp., 708 F.Supp. ......
-
Cowan v. Combined Ins. Co. of America
...Whether to award attorneys' fees and costs is within the sole discretion of the trial court. See IMCO USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co. of Minn., 729 F.Supp. 1322, 1323 (M.D.Fla.1990). Prior to the 1988 amendment to § 1447(c), most courts did not include an award of attorneys' fees for improper r......
-
Lytle v. Lytle
...See, e.g., Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Granite State Ins. Co., 764 F.Supp. 1146, 1147 (S.D.Tex.1990); IMCO USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co., 729 F.Supp. 1322, 1324 (M.D.Fla.1990). In making this determination, the key factor is the propriety of the defendant's removal. Excell, Inc. v. Sterling Boil......
-
Diversity jurisdiction removal in Florida.
...for the Central District of California, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). (47) See Imco USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota, 729 F. Supp. 1322, 1324 (M.D. Fla. 1990) (denying attorneys' fees and costs where removal was done in "bona fide good Matt Lucas is an attorney with the law fir......
-
Resolving the Conflict Between Receipt and Proper Service: Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc - Jennifer N. Moore
...Life Ins. Co., 572 F. Supp. 811, 813 (W.D. La. 1983). 11. See Tyler, 524 F. Supp. at 1212; IMCO USA, Inc. v. Title Ins. Co. of Minn., 729 F. Supp. 1322, 1322-23 (M.D. Fla. 1990); Trepel, 789 F. Supp. at 882. 12. These are the courtesy copy cases. See Burr v. Choice Hotels, Int'l, Inc., 848 ......