Murry Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing

Citation526 U.S. 344,143 L.Ed.2d 448,119 S.Ct. 1322
Decision Date05 April 1999
Docket Number971909
PartiesMURPHY BROTHERS, INC. v. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC. (97-1909) 125 F.3d 1396, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 119 S.Ct. 1322 143 L.Ed.2d 4481909 MURPHY BROTHERS, INC., PETITIONER v. MICHETTI PIPE STRINGING, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the time within which a defendant named in a state-court action may remove the action to a federal court. The governing provision is 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), which specifies, in relevant part, that the removal notice "shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the [complaint]." The question presented is whether the named defendant must be officially summoned to appear in the action before the time to remove begins to run. Or, may the 30-day period start earlier, on the named defendant's receipt, before service of official process, of a "courtesy copy" of the filed complaint faxed by counsel for the plaintiff?

We read Congress' provisions for removal in light of a bedrock principle: An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court's authority, by formal process. Accordingly, we hold that a named defendant's time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of the complaint, "through service or otherwise," after and apart from service of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service.

I

On January 26, 1996, respondent Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. (Michetti), filed a complaint in Alabama state court seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract and fraud by petitioner Murphy Bros., Inc. (Murphy). Michetti did not serve Murphy at that time, but three days later it faxed a "courtesy copy" of the file-stamped complaint to one of Murphy's vice presidents. The parties then engaged in settlement discussions until February 12, 1996, when Michetti officially served Murphy under local law by certified mail.

On March 13, 1996 (30 days after service but 44 days after receiving the faxed copy of the complaint), Murphy removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.1 Michetti moved to remand the case to the state court on the ground that Murphy filed the removal notice 14 days too late. The notice of removal had not been filed within 30 days of the date on which Murphy's vice president received the facsimile transmission. Consequently, Michetti asserted, the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), which 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." (Emphasis added.)

The District Court denied the remand motion on the ground that the 30-day removal period did not commence until Murphy was officially served with a summons. The court observed that the phrase "or otherwise" was added to §1446(b) in 1949 to govern removal in States where an action is commenced merely by the service of a summons, without any requirement that the complaint be served or even filed contemporaneously. See App. A 24. Accordingly, the District Court said, the phrase had "no field of operation" in States such as Alabama, where the complaint must be served along with the summons. See ibid.

On interlocutory appeal permitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, instructing the District Court to remand the action to state court. 125 F.3d 1396, 1399 (1997). The Eleventh Circuit held that "the clock starts to tick upon the defendant's receipt of a copy of the filed initial pleading." Id., at 1397. "By and large," the appellate court wrote, "our analysis begins and ends with" the words "receipt . . . or otherwise." Id., at 1397 1398 (emphasis deleted). Because lower courts have divided on the question whether service of process is a prerequisite for the running of the 30-day removal period under §1446(b),2 we granted certiorari. 525 U.S. ___ (1998).

II

Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant. At common law, the writ of capias ad respondendum directed the sheriff to secure the defendant's appearance by taking him into custody. See 1 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶0.6[2. 2], p. 212 (2d ed. 1996) ("[T]he three royal courts, Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King's Bench . . . obtained an in personam jurisdiction over the defendant in the same manner through the writ of capias ad respondendum."). The requirement that a defendant be brought into litigation by official service is the contemporary counterpart to that writ. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) ("[T]he capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice.").

In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant. See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) ("Before a . . . court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied."); Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444 445 (1946) ("[S]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court . . . asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served."). Accordingly, one becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(a) ("[The summons] shall . . . state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend, and notify the defendant that failure to do so will result in a judgment by default against the defendant."); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1)(A) (a defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days of being served with the summons and complaint). Unless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.

III

When Congress enacted §1446(b), the legislators did not endeavor to break away from the traditional understanding. Prior to 1948, a defendant could remove a case any time before the expiration of her time to respond to the complaint under state law. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 72 (1940 ed.). Because the time limits for responding to the complaint varied from State to State, however, the period for removal correspondingly varied. To reduce the disparity, Congress in 1948 enacted the original version of §1446(b), which provided that "[t]he petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding may be filed within twenty days after commencement of the action or service of process, whichever is later." Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 939, as amended, 28 U.S. C. §1446(b). According to the relevant House Report, this provision was intended to "give adequate time and operate uniformly throughout the Federal jurisdiction." H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A135 (1947).

Congress soon recognized, however, that §1446(b), as first framed, did not "give adequate time and operate uniformly" in all States. In States such as New York, most notably, service of the summons commenced the action, and such service could precede the filing of the complaint. Under §1446(b) as originally enacted, the period for removal in such a State could have expired before the defendant obtained access to the complaint.

To ensure that the defendant would have access to the complaint before commencement of the removal period, Congress in 1949 enacted the current version of §1446(b): "The petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within twenty days [now thirty days]3 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." Act of May 24, 1949, §83(a), 63 Stat. 101. The accompanying Senate Report explained:

"In some States suits are begun by the service of a summons or other process without the necessity of filing any pleading until later. As the section now stands, this places the defendant in the position of having to take steps to remove a suit to Federal court before he knows what the suit is about. As said section is herein proposed to be rewritten, a defendant is not required to file his petition for removal until 20 days after he has received (or it has been made available to him) a copy of the initial pleading filed by the plaintiff setting forth the claim upon which the suit is based and the relief prayed for. It is believed that this will meet the varying conditions of practice in all the States." S. Rep. No. 303, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1949).

See also H. R. Rep. No. 352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1949) ("The first paragraph of the amendment to subsection (b) corrects [the New York problem] by providing that the petition for removal need not be filed until 20 days after the defendant has received a copy of the plaintiff's initial pleading.").4 Nothing in the legislative history of the 19...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2080 cases
  • McManus v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 31, 2007
    ...in the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant). See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350, 119 S.Ct. 1322, 143 L.Ed.2d 448 (1999) (citing Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 L.Ed.2......
  • Roberson v. Maestro Consulting Servs. LLC, Case No. 20-CV-00895-NJR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Southern District of Illinois
    • December 14, 2020
    ...service is required to trigger the 30–day clock, as the Supreme Court held 15 years ago in Murphy Brothers v. Michetti Pipe Stringing , 526 U.S. 344, 119 S.Ct. 1322, 143 L.Ed.2d 448 (1999) )"; Dent v. Renaissance Mktg. Corp. , 2014 WL 5465006, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2014) (same). Here, t......
  • Ryan v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 1, 2020
    ...personal jurisdiction over a defendant by means of a writ of capias ad respondendum. See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350, 119 S.Ct. 1322, 143 L.Ed.2d 448 (1999). This writ "directed the sheriff to secure the defendant's appearance by taking him into custody.......
  • Canaday v. Anthem Cos.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 17, 2021
    ...sheriff to take the defendant into custody to secure his appearance before the court. See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. , 526 U.S. 344, 350, 119 S.Ct. 1322, 143 L.Ed.2d 448 (1999). Service of process took the old writ's place in the mid-eighteenth century, making a summons r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Class Actions 101: Considerations For Removing A Case To'And Keeping It In'Federal Court Under The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 16, 2022
    ...has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant."). 6. Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-48, 354-56 (1999) ("[W]e hold that a named defendant's time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complain......
  • Significant Changes To The Federal Jurisdictional Statutes Effective January 6, 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 18, 2012
    ...that section, there is no indication in the JVCA that Congress intended to abrogate Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that "a named defendant's time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons......
  • Third Circuit Holds 'Later-Served' Rule Applies To Removal In Multiple Defendant Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 27, 2011
    ...rejected the policy that removal statutes be strictly construed in its decision in Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (holding that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant's time to remove a case is not triggered until a defendant is formally served ......
  • This Week At The Ninth: Disagreements On Display
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 28, 2022
    ...text of ' 1441(a). La Russo is also contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999), which held that 28 US.C. ' 1446(b), which sets out a 30-day deadline for removal, requires more than receipt of a complaint to start t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 books & journal articles
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ...start the removal time running by sending a potential defendant a draft complaint. [See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc ., 526 US 344 (1999).] Comment: A “courtesy copy” of a filed complaint that has not yet been served does not start the 30-day removal period. [ Murphy Bros. I......
  • Forum Selection: Venue, Forum Non Conveniens, and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Pretrial Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2013
    ...is not obliged to remove until brought under a court’s authority by formal process. [ Murphy Bros. Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. , 526 US 344, 347-348, 119 SCt 1322 (1999).] The Court noted that the “or otherwise” language was added to §1446(b) to govern removal in states where an a......
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Civil Practice Before Trial
    • May 2, 2018
    ...start the removal time running by sending a potential defendant a draft complaint. [See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc ., 526 US 344 (1999).] COMMENT: A “courtesy copy” of a filed complaint that has not yet been served does not start the 30-day removal period. [ Murphy Bros. I......
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • August 18, 2016
    ...start the removal time running by sending a potential defendant a draft complaint. [See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc ., 526 US 344 (1999).] COMMENT: A “courtesy copy” of a filed complaint that has not yet been served does not start the 30-day removal period. [ Murphy Bros. I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT