Teitelbaum v. Soloski, CV 94-0013 AWT.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 94-0013 AWT.,CV 94-0013 AWT. |
| Parties | Steven C. TEITELBAUM, Plaintiff, v. Warren J. SOLOSKI, etc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Jeffrey A. Slott, Andrew W. Hawthorne, Slott & Diamond, Encino, CA, for plaintiff.
Rodney M. Perlman, Stephen M. Cohen, Joi C. True, Wehner and Perlman, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants Warren J. Soloski, a Professional Corp., and Warren J. Soloski, an Individual.
James A. Twitty, Malibu, CA, for defendants FedSure, Inc., a Colorado Corp., and Roger Thompson.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF REMAND
This action was removed here by defendant Warren J. Soloski ("Soloski") on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Because of substantial doubt as to the timeliness of removal, an order to show cause ("OSC") was issued why this action should not be remanded to state court. At about the same time, plaintiff made a timely motion to remand the action to state court. One of the grounds of remand urged by plaintiff was that certain defendants had not timely joined in the notice of removal.1 Both the OSC and motion have now been fully briefed and submitted for decision.
Soloski's notice of removal was filed on January 3, 1994. He was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on December 9, 1993.2 Defendants FedSure U.S., Inc., and Roger Thompson (collectively "Fedsure") filed their joinder to the notice of removal on January 12. They had been served with the summons and complaint on December 12. Although the sufficiency of service is contested, it is undisputed that Fedsure received a copy of the summons and complaint on that date.
The removal statute provides, in part:
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) & (b) (emphasis added). Under this language all defendants must join in the notice of removal. Because all defendants must join, the 30-day period for removal commences to run from the date the first defendant receives a copy of the complaint. Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 481-82 (5th Cir.1986); Transport Indem. Co. v. Financial Trust Co., 339 F.Supp. 405 (C.D.Cal.1972).
Here, the first defendant, Soloski, was served with summons and complaint on December 9.3 Thus, the time to join in the notice of removal, for all defendants, commenced to run on December 9 and expired 30 days later, i.e., on January 10.4 Defendants contend, however, that FedSure was not required to join in the notice of removal because it had not been properly served with summons and complaint. It is immaterial that FedSure believes service to be defective and is contesting the sufficiency of service. It is undisputed that FedSure actually received a copy of the complaint on December 6 or 12, i.e., prior to the date the notice of removal was filed.
Removal must be effected within thirty days after a defendant receives a copy of the state court complaint, or is served, whichever occurs first. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
Northern Ill. Gas Co. v. Airco Indus. Gases, A Div. of Airco, Inc., 676 F.2d 270, 273 (7th Cir.1982) (emphasis added). Thus, FedSure was required to join in the notice of removal.5
FedSure did not file its joinder in the notice of removal until January 12, which was 34 days after service of the summons and complaint on Soloski. Thus, removal was untimely.
Plaintiff seeks costs and attorney's fees in moving for remand, contending that the removal was in "bad faith." The court sees no basis for making a bad faith finding. What appears to have happened is either a mixup in communications between the attorney for Soloski, on the one hand, and the attorney for FedSure, on the other, or a simple ignorance of the rule that the time for all defendants to join in the notice of removal commences to run on the date that the first defendant is served or receives a copy of the summons and complaint.
The award of costs and fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is discretionary. Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir.1992). While a showing of "bad faith" is not required, id. at 446, the court requires some showing beyond the bare fact of remand to justify the award of attorney's fees. See California v. Steelcase Inc., 792 F.Supp. 84, 87 (C.D.Cal.1992). Here defendants missed the 30-day removal window by four days. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Fhp Intern. Corp.
...FHP should have obtained the consent of Defendant Bourne within thirty days of filing its notice of removal. In Teitelbaum v. Soloski, 843 F.Supp. 614 (N.D.Cal.1994), Judge Tashima held that where a defendant had actually received a copy of the complaint prior to the date the notice of remo......
-
In re Pharmaceutical Ind. Aver. Whole. Price Lit.
...the notice of removal is filed. See, e.g., Schwartz v. FHP Int'l Corp., 947 F.Supp. 1354, 1363-64 (D.Ariz.1996); Teitelbaum v. Soloski, 843 F.Supp. 614, 615 (C.D.Cal.1994). Here, the question is not lack of service but improper service. That is, must a removing defendant get the consent of ......
-
Gray v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...award fees and reversing a court's exercise of that same discretion in awarding fees. An example of the former is Teitelbaum v. Soloski, 843 F.Supp. 614, 616 (C.D.Cal.1994), holding that the "bare fact of remand" is not enough to justify attorneys fees when the defendants merely exceeded th......
-
Bertrand v. Aventis Pasteur Laboratories, Inc., CIV-01-2431-PHX-PGR.
...had a legitimate or colorable legal ground for removal or when remand was based on procedural defects. See Teitelbaum v. Soloski, 843 F.Supp. 614, 616 (C.D.Cal.1994). Plaintiffs Motion merely requested fees and costs. It did not provide any argument as to why fees and costs would be appropr......
-
ABSURD OVERLAP: SNAP REMOVAL AND THE RULE OF UNANIMITY.
...(93.) See Lewis, 757 F.2d at 68-69. (94.) See id. (95.) See STEINMAN ET AL., supra note 14, [section] 3730; Teitelbaum v. Soloski, 843 F. Supp. 614, 615 (CD. Cal. 1994) (creating an actual notice standard, where defendants are required to join in the notice for removal if they receive any c......