%PDF-1.6
%
2 0 obj
<>
endobj
240 0 obj
<>stream
Tuesday January 25, 2011 11:37:46
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2(Infix)
2011-01-28T12:14:28-05:00
2011-01-28T12:14:28-05:00
application/pdf
uuid:58144924-830d-4ebe-8e7a-9100f2749173
uuid:003fe645-6037-4985-9895-5419a6dc1f8a
endstream
endobj
236 0 obj
<>
endobj
241 0 obj
<>
endobj
242 0 obj
<>
endobj
243 0 obj
<>
endobj
244 0 obj
<>
endobj
277 0 obj
<>
endobj
278 0 obj
<>
endobj
279 0 obj
<>
endobj
280 0 obj
<>
endobj
281 0 obj
<>
endobj
282 0 obj
<>
endobj
283 0 obj
<>
endobj
295 0 obj
<>
endobj
289 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
296 0 obj
<>stream
HMo@9/RD!%-Ɂbi k-k0۵oM.̾3n:7,[f|
47xqs$I#+]]Qk馬S[EMV@UU8\`q& 3͙/3r}P>]J-I 2okإ)i,I7&mPuꮶ-vgs]ED|wLYӱvDDF06B@3j0yE=?`qnpqY#FlbQ7v8=;,ʖZ$}uow+u*qoB #"dgۏF7L)2AuM7r/ #D[9[S]:"_<Oq;H
W K")
endstream
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
239 0 obj
<>
endobj
298 0 obj
<>
endobj
301 0 obj
<>
endobj
300 0 obj
<>
endobj
297 0 obj
[/ICCBased 302 0 R]
endobj
302 0 obj
<>stream
Hb``$WR~|@T#2S/`M.(*(%8H8c-
fԉd9@6_IjH9(3=DR1%?)U!$5X3/9 ($5j%V*'&*r" (,!!0b;CҢ2(ɘ I8/
endstream
endobj
234 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>
endobj
87 0 obj
<>
endobj
106 0 obj
<>
endobj
103 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
107 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
110 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
113 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
116 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
119 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
120 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.77 Tw
0 Tc
(the first-served defendant, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the International Union, failed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(to file a timely notice of removal. The first-served defendant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(rule thus forecloses removal not only for the International) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(Union, but all other defendants as well, including Local 1212,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(which never received service of process. Only the Fifth Cir-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cuit has adopted the first-served defendant rule.) Tj
0 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Rule) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.75 Tw
(Six years after the Fifth Circuit adopted the first-served) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(defendant rule in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, this Court tendered its opinion in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(McKinney v. Board of Trustees) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 955 F.2d 924 \(4th Cir. 1992\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(which considered a ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.37 Tw
(1446\(b\) removal issue on similar facts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(to those in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( opinion observed that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(later-served defendants could join an existing removal notice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(within thirty days of service upon them, provided the first-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(served defendant had timely filed a notice of removal.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 928.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.42 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( rule gives each defendant thirty days from) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(that defendant's date of service of process to join a removal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(petition, so long as the first-served defendant filed the notice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(of removal within thirty days of its service. Under the facts of) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.6 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The ") Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( rule" is derived from footnote three in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney v.) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(Board of Trustees of Maryland Community College) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 955 F.2d 924 \(4th) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(Cir. 1992\), as more fully discussed in the majority opinion. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.44 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although the district courts in this Circuit have considered the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKin-) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(ney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( rule to be dicta, some have followed it while others have not. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Com-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(pare ) Tj
(Ratliff v. Workman) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 274 F. Supp. 2d 783, 787 \(S.D. W. Va. 2003\)) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.2 Tw
(\(noting that the facts of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( "did not require the court to resolve . . .) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.73 Tw
(whether an individual defendant may remove a case within thirty days of) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.89 Tw
(service even when a previously served defendant has failed to remove in) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.96 Tw
(a timely manner" and explaining that footnote three "is therefore consid-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.28 Tw
(ered dictum"\), ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(with ) Tj
(Superior Painting & Contracting Co. v. Walton Tech.,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.15 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 207 F. Supp. 2d 391, 393 n.4 \(D. Md. 2002\) \(noting that although the) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.2 Td
.17 Tw
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Court's "pronouncements on when first-served defendants must) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.73 Tw
(file notices of removal has been termed dicta," "dictum from the court of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.22 Tw
(appeals should be considered presumptively correct by the district court[s]) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(within that circuit" \(quotation omitted\)\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -307.65 m 300 -307.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(36) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
1 0 obj
[/PDF/Text]
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
226 0 obj
<>
endobj
233 0 obj
<>
endobj
231 0 obj
<>
endobj
225 0 obj
<>
endobj
227 0 obj
<>
endobj
117 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.03 Tw
0 Tc
(a brief overview illustrating the principles of each rule and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(how it would apply to the case at bar may be useful. ) Tj
114.51 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Overview) Tj
-114.51 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(First-Served Defendant Rule) Tj
12 -26 Td
.48 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown v. Demco, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 792 F.2d 478 \(5th Cir. 1986\), the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(Fifth Circuit observed that "[t]he general rule . . . is that `[i]f) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(the first served defendant abstains from seeking removal or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(does not effect a timely removal, subsequently served defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(dants cannot remove . . . due to the rule of unanimity among) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(defendants which is required for removal.'" 792 F.2d at 481) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(\(quoting 1A Moore's Federal Practice, 0.168 [3.5-5], 586-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.84 Tw
(87 \(2d ed. 1985\)\). Two years later, in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil Corp. v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(Insurance Co. of North America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 841 F.2d 1254 \(5th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(1988\), the Fifth Circuit expressly adopted what has become) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(known as the "first-served defendant" rule: ) Tj
22 -26 Td
2.83 Tw
(In cases involving multiple defendants, the thirty-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(day period begins to run as soon as the first defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(dant is served \(provided the case is then removable\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(It follows that since all served defendants must join) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(in the petition, and since the petition must be submit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(ted within thirty days of service on the first defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(dant, all served defendants must join in the petition) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(no later than thirty days from the day on which the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(first defendant was served.) Tj
-22 -26 Td
(841 F.2d at 1262-63 \(internal citations omitted\).) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
5.4 Tw
(Under the first-served defendant rule, the first-served) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(defendant must file the notice of removal within thirty days) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(of the receipt of service of process. If the first-served defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.84 Tw
(dant fails to do so, no removal is permitted by any other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(defendant, regardless of when or if other defendants were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(served by the end of the initial defendant's thirty-day period.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(Removal in the case at bar was untimely under this rule, as) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(35) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
114 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
.41 Tw
0 Tc
(The notice of removal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of a civil action or proceeding) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.44 Tw
(shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
3.38 Tw
(the defendant) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, through service or otherwise, of a) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(relief upon which such action or proceeding is based,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.07 Tw
(or within thirty days after the service of summons) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.32 Tw
(upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.47 Tw
(been filed in court and is not required to be served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(on the defendant, whichever period is shorter. . . . ) Tj
-22 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(\(emphasis added.\) As is self-evident, the statute speaks only) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.96 Tw
(in terms of a singular defendant and does not explicitly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(address the timeliness of removal in cases involving multiple) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(defendants, as in the case at bar. "All pertinent sections of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(removal statute contemplate cases with more than one defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(dant, except for ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.85 Tw
(1446\(b\). This conspicuous omission has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(created the most serious statutory construction problem when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.72 Tw
(removal is sought in multidefendant actions." Howard B.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Stravitz, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Recocking the Removal Trigger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 53 S.C. L. Rev. 185,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(200 \(2002\) \(footnote omitted\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.95 Tw
(Application of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.95 Tw
(1446\(b\) thus poses a conundrum when) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(multiple defendants are served at different times, particularly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.67 Tw
(when some named defendants have received no service of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(process. Why Congress drafted the statute as it did is any-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(one's guess, but notwithstanding any Congressional impreci-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.2 Tw
(sion, courts adjudicating an issue of timely removal must) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(endeavor to apply a statutory framework which most closely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(matches Congress' intent. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. Passaro) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 577) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(F.3d 207, 213 \(4th Cir. 2009\) \("When interpreting any statute,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(we must first and foremost strive to implement congressional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.86 Tw
(intent by examining the plain language of the statute."\). As) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.17 Tw
(the majority notes, in divining that intent, the courts of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.42 Tw
(appeals have set forth three distinct interpretations of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1446\(b\)'s application to multiple defendants: \(1\) the "first-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(served defendant rule," \(2\) the ") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( rule," and \(3\) the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.31 Tw
("last-served defendant rule." Before examining which rule) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(most closely follows Congress' intent in enacting ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.37 Tw
(1446\(b\),) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(34) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
111 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.87 Tw
0 Tc
(reading of the terms of 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.87 Tw
(1446\(b\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Therefore, I do) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.55 Tw
(not join the majority's adoption of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( rule and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(would hold that the UAW's notice of removal was timely.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.12 Tw
(Nonetheless, because I do not find that complete preemption) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.18 Tw
(applies to the Retirees' claims, I would remand the case to the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(state court because the district court lacked subject matter) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(jurisdiction. Accordingly, I concur only in the Court's judg-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment remanding this case to the Maryland state court.) Tj
146.502 -26.6 Td
(I.) Tj
-134.502 -26.6 Td
2.55 Tw
(The threshold issue to consider is whether the notice of) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.8 Tw
(removal was timely. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Fakouri v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.64 Tw
(824 F.2d 470, 472 \(6th Cir. 1987\) \("`In reviewing a denial of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(a motion to remand a removed case, we look to whether the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.01 Tw
(case was properly removed to federal court in the first place.'") Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.35 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 765 F.2d 815, 818) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.76 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 1985\)\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Ahearn v. Charter Twp. of Bloom-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(field) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 100 F.3d 451, 456-57 \(6th Cir. 1996\) \(recognizing that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.72 Tw
("[w]ithout proper removal, a state-court action does not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.08 Tw
(belong in federal court in the first place," finding removal was) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(improper, and declining to "express [an] opinion on the mer-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.31 Tw
(its"\). If the notice was untimely, we need not consider the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.36 Tw
(UAW's claim of complete preemption, as an invalid notice of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(removal would require a remand to the Maryland state court.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.3 Tw
(On the other hand, if the UAW's notice of removal was) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.96 Tw
(timely, we must then consider whether the district court pos-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.61 Tw
(sessed subject matter jurisdiction over the Retirees' claims) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(through complete preemption.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
(28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1446\(b\) provides: ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-2 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.81 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(For the reasons explained herein, the "last-served defendant rule" is) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.65 Tw
(somewhat of a misnomer. A more accurate description of that rule would) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.83 Tw
(be the "each-served defendant rule." Nonetheless, because the term "last-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(served defendant rule" is used by the majority and our sister circuits, as) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.85 Tw
(well as various treatises and commentators, I adhere to its usage for pur-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(poses of this opinion concurring in the judgment. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(33) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
108 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.42 Tw
0 Tc
(longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.85 Tw
(avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.48 Tw
(necessity of deciding them."\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.58 Tw
(Auth.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 \(1936\) \(Brandeis, J., concurring\)) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.38 Tw
(\("The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. . . . It is not the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.9 Tw
(nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case"\)) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.88 Tw
(\(citations and internal quotation marks omitted\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Columbia) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.79 Tw
(Venture, LLC v. Dewberry & Davis, LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 604 F.3d 824, 828) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.41 Tw
(\(4th Cir.\) \("We have held that federal preemption of state law) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(is a constitutional question because it is premised on the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.8 Tw
(Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.71 Tw
(when a party provides alternative independent state law) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.97 Tw
(grounds for disposing of a case, courts should not decide the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(constitutional question of preemption before considering the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.05 Tw
(state law grounds."\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 2010 WL 3644597 \(U.S.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.58 Tw
(November 29, 2010\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bell Atl. Md., Inc. v. Prince George's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.47 Tw
(County) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 212 F.3d 863, 865 \(4th Cir. 2000\) \(discussing consti-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(tutional nature of preemption analysis\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(H & R Block) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.11 Tw
(E. Enter., Inc. v. Raskin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 591 F.3d 718, 723-24 \(4th Cir. 2010\)) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.66 Tw
(\(applying ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bell Atlantic) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to remand the case for consideration) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(of whether the statute applied to the plaintiff before deciding) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(whether it was preempted\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
150.276 -26.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(VACATED AND REMANDED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-150.276 -26.3 Td
(AGEE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
.7 Tw
(While I concur in the judgment of the Court, I respectfully) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(disagree with the basis upon which the majority opinion rests) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.5 Tw
(that judgment. As explained below, I believe the last-served) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.87 Tw
(defendant rule represents the more accurate and appropriate) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.47 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In its review of the district court's judgment, the separate opinion) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.31 Tw
(addresses the preemption issue raised by UAW. We emphasize that this) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(preemption discussion is ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( binding on remand to the Circuit Court for) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(Cecil County, Maryland. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(32) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
104 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.63 Tw
0 Tc
(reliance here on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( rests on the faulty assump-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(tions that each defendant enjoys a procedural right to remove) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.93 Tw
(a case and that each defendant will always consent to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(removal.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.87 Tw
(Finally, the separate opinion relies on a perceived inequity) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(in the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule, namely, that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(ney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule prevents the last-served defendant from) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.1 Tw
(persuading earlier-served defendants to join a notice of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.07 Tw
(removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 48-49. In Part III, we have adequately) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.38 Tw
(addressed this perceived inequity. Suffice-it-to-say that: \(1\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(there is no language in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.36 Tw
(1446\(b\) to suggest that Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(intended to protect this power of persuasion when it enacted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
() Tj
( ) Tj
(1446\(b\); \(2\) this perceived inequity relies on the same faulty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(assumption mentioned above; and \(3\) the power of persuasion) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(rationale is manifestly unfair, in the sense that it treats multi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ple defendants and single defendants differently.) Tj
145.668 -26 Td
(V) Tj
-133.668 -26 Td
1.53 Tw
(In summary, Chief Judge Ervin writing for the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(court got it right back in February 1992. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(mediate Rule adheres to the plain language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.66 Tw
(1446\(b\), but,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(more importantly, recognizes that federal courts are courts of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.04 Tw
(limited jurisdiction, that we should construe removal statutes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(narrowly, and that any doubts should be resolved in favor of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(state court jurisdiction. Accordingly, we vacate the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(court's decision holding that the joint notice of removal was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(timely filed and remand the case to the district court with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(instructions to remand the case to state court.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.47 Tw
(Given that removal was not proper, we must refrain from) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(addressing the Retirees' other arguments, namely, that their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(claims are not preempted by federal labor law and that their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(claims are not barred by the six-month statute of limitation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(contained in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.07 Tw
(10\(b\) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.25 Tw
(160\(b\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tective Ass'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 485 U.S. 439, 445 \(1988\) \("A fundamental and) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(31) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
88 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
91 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
94 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
97 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
100 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
101 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.41 Tw
0 Tc
(another way, the majority's gripe is not necessarily with the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.75 Tw
(language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.75 Tw
(1446\(b\), but rather with the perceived unfair-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.03 Tw
(ness in the rule of unanimity, which allows one defendant to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(thwart the wishes of his or her fellow defendants. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.03 Tw
(Third, the separate opinion stresses that its construction of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.3 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(1446\(b\) is in line with the principle that we strictly construe) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.43 Tw
(removal statutes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 41. Of course, such stress is prem-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.24 Tw
(ised on the same erroneous assumption described abovethat) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.58 Tw
(each defendant in a multiple-defendant case enjoys a proce-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(dural right to remove a case. In any event, the separate opin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(ion's reliance on the principle of strict construction suffers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.1 Tw
(from another flaw. The strict construction principle is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(designed to protect the interests of the state, as removal mani-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(festly deprives a state from preserving the right of one of its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(citizens to proceed in state court. It follows, then, that strict) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(construction requires us to limit the circumstances in which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(removal can be obtained, not expand them. Yet, this is exactly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(what the separate opinion seeks to achieve. Rather than limit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(ing the time in which the rights of the parties are fixed, thus) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.32 Tw
(preserving state interests, the separate opinion seeks to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(broaden the time. Rather than requiring the first-served defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(dant to decide if he or she should proceed in state or federal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.95 Tw
(court, the separate opinion would allow such defendant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(another bite at the apple. The list could go on, but suffice-it-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(to-say the separate opinion pays only lip service to the time-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(honored principle of strict construction. And it of course is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(silent on the principle that any doubts concerning the propri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ety of removal should be resolved ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(against) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( removal.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.37 Tw
(Fourth, the separate opinion also observes that its embrace-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.68 Tw
(ment of the Last-Served Defendant Rule is "strengthened" by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(the Supreme Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. In doing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(so, the separate opinion recognizes that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(not directly on point. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 45, 46. The separate opinion) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(essentially adopts the reasoning of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(courts, so no extended discussion is necessary. Succinctly put,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did not involve multiple defendants and any) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(30) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
98 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2 Tw
0 Tc
(essentially the same reasons espoused by the Sixth, Eighth,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(and Eleventh Circuits. However, like the analysis in the cases) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.63 Tw
(from our sister circuits, we find the analysis of the separate) Tj
0 -13 Td
.82 Tw
(opinion wanting. First, the separate opinion seems more con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.43 Tw
(cerned with what ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.43 Tw
(1446\(b\) does not say rather than what it) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.96 Tw
(does say. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 39-40. Quite clearly, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.96 Tw
(1446\(b\) requires a) Tj
0 -13 Td
.54 Tw
(single defendant to file a notice of removal. If a single defen-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.48 Tw
(dant does not file a notice of removal, the case cannot be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(removed. The question before us, then, is whether, under the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.11 Tw
(1446\(b\), removal can be achieved by that single) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.9 Tw
(defendant where he or she is part of a larger, multiple-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(defendant case and some later-served defendant \(served out-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(side the single defendant's thirty-day window\) convinces the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(single defendant \(and all other defendants\) that removal is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(appropriate. The language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.33 Tw
(1446\(b\) simply does not allow) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(for removal under such circumstances, because such language) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
(neither is permissive in nature, nor does it seek to protect the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(right of persuasion for later-served defendants.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.41 Tw
(Second, and along a similar vein, the separate opinion goes) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(on at length about how its interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.58 Tw
(1446\(b\) adheres) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(to the statute's plain language and does not add words to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(statute. But the separate opinion's interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.9 Tw
(1446\(b\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.68 Tw
(does just thatit adds the word "each" to the statute. Also,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(the separate opinion never recognizes the consequences of its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(textual change, that is, that such interpretation changes "shall") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(to "may" in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.15 Tw
(1446\(b\). Moreover, the separate opinion's inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(pretation of ) Tj
( ) Tj
(1446\(b\) is premised on the assumption that each) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(defendant in a multiple-defendant case enjoys a procedural) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(right to remove a case. Such assumption is incorrect. Rather,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(each defendant does not enjoy a procedural right to remove a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(case, because such right is conditioned on each and every) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(defendant joining the notice of removal. In other words, any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(defendant can defeat removal. Thus, at the end of the day, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(separate opinion's interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.57 Tw
(1446\(b\) seeks to protect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(a right that does not exist in the language of the statute, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.77 Tw
(is, the right of the last-served defendant to persuade the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.16 Tw
(earlier-served defendants that removal is appropriate. Put) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(29) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
95 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.6 Tw
0 Tc
(process." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 347. That principle is neither threatened nor) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(implicated in this case.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.83 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts also seemed concerned that) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.57 Tw
(the First-Served Defendant Rule and/or the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Inter-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.81 Tw
(mediate Rule required or obligated later-served defendants to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.73 Tw
(engage in litigation prior to service, thus running afoul of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
2.38 Tw
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, because the First-Served Defendant Rule) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.32 Tw
(and/or the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule obligated the later-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.14 Tw
(served defendants to seek removal prior to their receipt of for-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(mal process. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536 F.3d at 1208; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 254 F.3d at) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.17 Tw
(756. This reliance on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( rests on a faulty prem-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.41 Tw
(isethat the first-served defendant will always consent to the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.83 Tw
(removal. Without the filing of a notice of removal within the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
(initial thirty-day window, participation by later-served defen-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.9 Tw
(dants at that juncture of the litigation is inconsequential, as a) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.43 Tw
(result of the rule of unanimity, a rule that understandably was) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(not implicated in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
145.998 -25.3 Td
(B) Tj
-133.998 -25.3 Td
1.71 Tw
(In its brief, the UAW argues that the Last-Served Defen-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
3.47 Tw
(dant Rule is necessary to prevent unscrupulous plaintiffs') Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1 Tw
(attorneys from manipulating the service of process system in) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.03 Tw
(order to defeat removal. Obviously missing from this argu-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.5 Tw
(ment is any empirical evidence even remotely suggesting that) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2 Tw
(such manipulation has occurred or is currently occurring in) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.94 Tw
(the state and federal courts. In fact, the only empirical evi-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.46 Tw
(dence before the court here are the facts of this case, which) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.55 Tw
(do not favor the UAW. Indeed, the International, Local 1183,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.04 Tw
(and Local 1212 were all represented by the same attorneys) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.11 Tw
(and the most sophisticated of the three defendants, the Inter-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
0 Tw
(national, was served first and deliberately chose not to remove) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(the case.) Tj
143.67 -25.3 Td
(IV) Tj
-131.67 -25.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(The separate opinion of our good colleague concurring in) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
2.05 Tw
(the judgment embraces the Last-Served Defendant Rule for) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(28) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
92 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.38 Tw
0 Tc
(removal statutes must be construed narrowly, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Shamrock Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.76 Tw
(313 U.S. at 108-09, and any doubt about the propriety of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.6 Tw
(removal should be resolved in favor of remanding the case to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.87 Tw
(state court, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Dixon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 369 F.3d at 816. Instead of construing the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.91 Tw
(statute to encourage defendants to act in timely compliance) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(with ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(1446\(b\), the courts embracing the Last-Served Defen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.36 Tw
(dant Rule have done just the opposite. And to the extent there) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.9 Tw
(is doubt about the propriety of removal, such doubt must not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.81 Tw
(be resolved in favor of an interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.81 Tw
(1446\(b\) that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(requires only one defendant, among many defendants, to com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(ply with the statute.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.81 Tw
(Fifth, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts relied on the Supreme) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
3.2 Tw
(Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(1207-09; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 254 F.3d at 756-57. However, it must be) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.51 Tw
(emphasized that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did not involve multiple) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(defendants. It involved a single defendant, and the issue to be) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(decided was which service event triggered the running of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.77 Tw
(thirty-day window. 526 U.S. at 347. The plaintiff argued that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(the January 29, 1996 service of a faxed courtesy copy of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(complaint triggered the running of the thirty-day window; the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(defendant countered that February 12, 1996, the date of for-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(mal service in accordance with local law, triggered the run-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.41 Tw
(ning of the thirty-day window. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 348. The Court held that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(a defendant's time to remove "is triggered by simultaneous) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of the com-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(plaint, `through service or otherwise,' after and apart from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.97 Tw
(service of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the com-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(plaint unattended by any formal service." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The Court did) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.67 Tw
(not address, or even mention, the First-Served Defendant) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.9 Tw
(Rule, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule, or the Last-Served) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(Defendant Rule, or, for that matter, consider how to calculate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.11 Tw
(the period for removal in a case involving multiple defendants) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(served at different times. Indeed, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was based) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.51 Tw
(on the principle that "[a]n individual or entity named as a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(of the action, and brought under a court's authority, by formal) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(27) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
89 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.8 Tw
0 Tc
(1207. This observation is really beside the point. All three of) Tj
0 -13 Td
.94 Tw
(the rules before the court are consistent with the rule of una-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(nimity, because each of them requires all of the defendants at) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(some point in time to unanimously agree to removal.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
(The more salient question concerns when the forum selec-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(tion decision must be made. The Last-Served Defendant Rule) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(represents the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(broadest) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(1446\(b\), resulting) Tj
0 -13 Td
.33 Tw
(in the possibility that the forum selection question may not be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.46 Tw
(resolved for quite some time, especially if discovery reveals) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(that additional defendants should be named or if some defen-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.2 Tw
(dants are difficult to serve. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 792 F.2d at 481-82) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(\(holding that removal was not warranted where later-served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(defendants were added to a four-year old state court action) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(because no notice of removal was filed within thirty days of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(service on the first-served defendant\). One could envision) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(other scenarios that reduce the Last-Served Defendant Rule to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(a tool to forum-shop. Put simply, embracing the broadest) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.32 Tw
(interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.32 Tw
(1446\(b\) simply is inconsistent with the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.67 Tw
(principle that we must narrowly construe removal statutes.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(Shamrock Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 313 U.S. at 108-09. Such principle necessarily) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(means that we penalize plaintiffs, as well as defendants, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(sit on or waive their removal rights. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Buchner v. F.D.I.C.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(981 F.2d 816, 818 \(5th Cir. 1993\) \("Unquestionably, a party) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(may implicitly waive its right to remove a case by failing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(timely to file a notice of removal. Likewise, a party may) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(implicitly waive its right to contest the removal of a case on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.76 Tw
(procedural grounds by failing timely to move for remand."\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(\(footnotes omitted\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DeLia v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 258) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(F.R.D. 189, 190 n.2 \(D. Mass. 2009\) \(denying Federal Rule) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(of Civil Procedure 56\(f\) motion in removed case alleging con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(structive discharge; noting that not all defendants consented) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(to removal, but that the plaintiff, by failing to raise it within) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(thirty days of the removal, waived the defect\). Holding other-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(wise essentially engrafts an "interest of justice" standard into) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.41 Tw
(1446\(b\), allowing a court to relax the timeliness require-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(ments of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.96 Tw
(1446\(b\) when the interests of justice so require.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(Obviously, no such standard exists in the statute. Put simply,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(26) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
85 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.6 Tw
0 Tc
("through no fault of their own, [the later-served defendants]) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.12 Tw
(might . . . lose their statutory right to seek removal." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.16 Tw
(536 F.3d at 1206. This inequity is illusory, because it assumes) Tj
0 -13 Td
.77 Tw
(that later-served defendants can insist that a case be removed) Tj
0 -13 Td
.04 Tw
(to federal court. However, if the first-served defendant \(or any) Tj
0 -13 Td
6.2 Tw
(other defendant\) opposes removal, the case cannot be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(removed "through no fault" of the later-served defendants.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.16 Tw
(Third, the courts in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( implied that the term) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.88 Tw
("the defendant" in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.88 Tw
(1446\(b\) is naturally read to be "each) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(defendant," and this natural reading means that "each defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(dant" has thirty-days to file a notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.19 Tw
(F.3d at 1207; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 184 F.3d at 533. This statutory slight-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(of-hand allowed the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts to get around) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(the obvious import of their interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.51 Tw
(1446\(b\)that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(it inserts the term "last-served" between "the" and "defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(dant." But this removal of the definite article "the" does noth-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(ing to help the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts' cause, because the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(statute read as such requires each defendant to file a timely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.82 Tw
(1446\(b\) \("The notice of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(removal . . . shall be filed within thirty days . . . ."\). Under the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(interpretation of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts, each defendant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(is not filing a timely notice of removal, only the last-served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.04 Tw
(defendant is so filing. Moreover, under this interpretation,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(each defendant is not acting within ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.74 Tw
(1446\(b\)'s thirty days of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(service requirement. In any event, even with the insertion of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(the word "each," if the first-served defendant fails to file a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(timely notice of removal, then the rule of unanimity through) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
15.26 Tw
(the decision of the first-served defendantnot) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.91 Tw
(1446\(b\)operates to defeat removal. In effect, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts change the word "shall" in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.32 Tw
(1446\(b\) to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
("may." For obvious reasons, we are constrained to reject such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(a drastic change to the statute.) Tj
12 -26 Td
4 Tw
(Fourth, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court observed that the Last-Served) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.25 Tw
(Defendant Rule is consistent with the rule of unanimity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(because it allows earlier-served defendants to join a later-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.12 Tw
(served defendant's notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536 F.3d at) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(25) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
75 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
78 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
81 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
82 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.83 Tw
0 Tc
(rule. None of them survives close scrutiny. First, the court in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.09 Tw
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( observed "that the trend in recent case law" favored the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.83 Tw
(Last-Served Defendant Rule. 536 F.3d at 1205. However, a) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(recent interpretation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.71 Tw
(1446\(b\) that is inconsistent with the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(statute's plain language and results in a broad construction of) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(the statute simply cannot be endorsed, for obvious reasons.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.36 Tw
(Second, the courts in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( pointed to inequi-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.58 Tw
(ties that flow from the First-Served Defendant Rule and the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
3.95 Tw
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule, in particular, that the Last-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.67 Tw
(Served Defendant Rule is necessary to allow later-served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(defendants an opportunity to persuade earlier-served defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(dants to join a notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536 F.3d at 1206-07;) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 254 F.3d at 755; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 184 F.3d at 533) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(\(noting that "as a matter of fairness to later-served defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(dants," it endorsed the Last-Served Defendant Rule\). How-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(ever, it is difficult to believe that Congress intended to protect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(this power of persuasion when it enacted ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(1446\(b\). In fact,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(this power of persuasion rationale creates such an inequity of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(its own that it is surprising that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( courts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(relied upon it at all. The power of persuasion rationale neces-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(sarily treats multiple defendants and single defendants differ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(ently. A single defendant who deliberately chooses not to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.48 Tw
(remove a case cannot change his mind after the thirty-day) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(window closes. However, if that single defendant is the first-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.75 Tw
(served in a multiple-defendant case, that defendant gets) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.6 Tw
(another bite at the apple simply because he is part of a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.38 Tw
(multiple-defendant case. There simply is no language in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.53 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.53 Tw
(1446\(b\) that can be construed to suggest that Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(intended to treat single defendants and multiple-defendants) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.65 Tw
(differently in determining the timeliness of removal. Simi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(larly, there is no language in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.22 Tw
(1446\(b\) suggesting that Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(gress intended to treat multiple defendants served on the same) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(day differently than multiple defendants served on different) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(days.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
(Equally flawed is the notion that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermedi-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(ate Rule is inequitable to later-served defendants because,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(24) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
79 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.77 Tw
0 Tc
(would have been in if the co-defendant had opposed removal) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.64 Tw
(or were domiciled in the same state as the plaintiff."\). As) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.1 Tw
(Judge Shedd aptly noted in his district court opinion in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.18 Tw
(Branch) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, "[t]he Court sees no reason why [the first-served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(defendant's] failure to remove in a timely manner should be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(viewed differently simply because another defendant is in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(case." 83 F. Supp. 2d at 636.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.45 Tw
(Finally, it is evident that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(is in line with admonitions from the Supreme Court and this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(court that we should construe removal statutes narrowly and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(that doubts concerning removal should be resolved in favor of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.38 Tw
(state court jurisdiction. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(requires the first-served defendant to act in a timely manner) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(to achieve removal. If later-served defendants desire removal,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
(they need only join a notice of removal that has been filed in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.18 Tw
(compliance with the time requirements of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.18 Tw
(1446\(b\) and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(within thirty days of the date they were served. Such interpre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(tation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.37 Tw
(1446\(b\) is narrow because it requires compliance) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(from the outset. Moreover, to the extent there is doubt as to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(which rule is the most appropriate, it stands to reason that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(doubt should be resolved in favor of the interpretation that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
12.67 Tw
(requires initialrather than latercompliance with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1446\(b\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.36 Tw
(In sum, we adhere to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule, as) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(this court has for close to nineteen years. Application of such) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(rule mandates that we remand this case to the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(with instructions to remand the case to state court, because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(there was no notice of removal filed within thirty days of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(date the International was served. ) Tj
144.006 -26 Td
(III) Tj
1.662 -26 Td
(A) Tj
-133.668 -26 Td
.61 Tw
(The courts following the Last-Served Defendant Rule have) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(put forth numerous rationales supporting their adoption of the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(23) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
76 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.11 Tw
0 Tc
(within thirty days of service requirement as applying to all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(defendants instead of just one, in our opinion, carries out Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(gress' intent in drafting the statute, and avoids reading the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(words "first-served" or "last-served" into ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1446\(b\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.1 Td
.52 Tw
(It is also worth noting that, under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermedi-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(ate Rule, the later-served defendants are in no worse position) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(than they would have been if the parties in the case were not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(completely diverse or the first-served defendant \(or any other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(defendant\) had opposed removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 792 F.2d at 482) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(\("A defendant who is added to a case in which a co-defendant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.69 Tw
(has failed to seek removal is in no worse position than it) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.71 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We recognize that ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.71 Tw
(1446\(b\) does not specifically address joinder.) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.28 Tw
(However, it is clear that Congress, in drafting ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.28 Tw
(1446\(b\), sought to require) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.88 Tw
(every defendant to take action seeking removal within thirty days of ser-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.18 Tw
(vice. Such action either is in the form of filing a notice of removal or join-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(ing an existing notice. If all defendants act within thirty days of service,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
4.57 Tw
(as recognized in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, we avoid reading "first[-served]" into) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.61 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.61 Tw
(1446\(b\). 955 F.2d at 927. This Congressional intent and other equitable) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(considerations lead us to reject the First-Served Defendant Rule in favor) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.03 Tw
(of the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule. The ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( court sought to fashion) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.67 Tw
(a joinder rule that would be fair to both plaintiffs and defendants. Under-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.93 Tw
(standably, we concluded that, once a timely petition was filed within the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.87 Tw
(initial thirty-day window, each later-served defendant should have thirty-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.45 Tw
(days from the date of service in which to join) Tj
( the petition for removal,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.6 Tw
(because ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.6 Tw
(1446\(b\) allows each defendant thirty days in which to act, and,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.55 Tw
(perhaps more importantly, at that point in time state interests are minimal) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.71 Tw
(\(the case is removed\) and no defendant has acted in an untimely manner.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.46 Tw
(Following the First-Served Defendant Rule would require a later-served) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.52 Tw
(defendant to join the petition within the initial thirty-day window, even) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.28 Tw
(though service on that defendant may have occurred more than thirty days) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.35 Tw
(after service on the first-served defendant. This rule, in our view, not only) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.16 Tw
(is contrary to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.16 Tw
(1446\(b\)'s allowance for action within thirty days of ser-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(vice, but it also penalizes a defendant who has not acted in an untimely) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(manner. In contrast to the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule, the Last-Served) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2 Tw
(Defendant Rule allows all of the defendants, except the last-served, to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.57 Tw
(both ignore ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.57 Tw
(1446\(b\)'s thirty-day action requirement and act in an) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.52 Tw
(untimely fashion; obviously, the Last-Served Defendant Rule, which) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.6 Tw
(allows a defendant to act in such a fashion, does not vindicate state inter-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2 Tw
(ests, as the rule requires, at least in some cases, for the state court to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(unnecessarily retain jurisdiction over a particular case. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -164.15 m 300 -164.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(22) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.08 Tw
0 Tc
(guage of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.08 Tw
(1446\(b\) and letting each defendant, beginning with) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.96 Tw
(the first-served defendant, decide whether the case should be) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
5.12 Tw
(removed. If the first-served defendant files a notice of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.54 Tw
(removal, later-served defendants have ample timethirty) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.55 Tw
(days from the date that each such defendant is servedto) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(decide whether to join the notice of removal, thus avoiding) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.96 Tw
(the Hobson's Choice we identified in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. While the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.48 Tw
(operation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(1446\(b\) may appear unfair to some, such oper-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.43 Tw
(ation is an inevitable feature of a court of limited jurisdiction.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
2.51 Tw
(Cf. ) Tj
(Russell Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 264 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.56 Tw
(1040, 1050 \(11th Cir. 2001\) \("There are several such bright) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.9 Tw
(line limitations on federal removal jurisdiction \(e.g. the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
0 Tw
(removal bar for in-state defendants and the one year time limit) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(for diversity removals\) that some might regard as arbitrary) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(and unfair. Such limitations, however, are an inevitable fea-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(ture of a court system of limited jurisdiction that strictly con-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(strues the right to remove."\).) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.14 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule obviously avoids the fatal) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.28 Tw
(flaw in the Last-Served Defendant Rule: The Last-Served) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.47 Tw
(Defendant Rule only applies ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(1446\(b\) to one defendantthe) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.86 Tw
(last-served. Innumerable defendants can intentionally ignore) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
5.14 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.14 Tw
(1446\(b\) if the last-served defendant can convince the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.24 Tw
(earlier-served defendants that their intentional decision was in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(error.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( It strains credulity to conclude that Congress intended) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(to allow defendants to flagrantly ignore ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1446\(b\).) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.87 Tw
(In contrast to the Last-Served Defendant Rule, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKin-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.47 Tw
(ney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule seeks to apply ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(1446\(b\)'s requirement) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.16 Tw
(to act within thirty days of service to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( defendants, including) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.08 Tw
(the first- and last-served. As noted above, the first-served) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.07 Tw
(defendant must file a notice of removal within thirty days of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.58 Tw
(service; later-served defendants have to join the notice within) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.38 Tw
(thirty days of service upon them. Interpreting ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.38 Tw
(1446\(b\)'s) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.18 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Counsel for the UAW candidly conceded at oral argument that she was) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.5 Tw
(pressing for a rule that would apply ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.5 Tw
(1446\(b\) to only ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(one) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( defendant \() Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(the last-served\) in a defendants-served-on-different-days case. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(21) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.77 Tw
0 Tc
(The question, then, is whether we should decline to follow) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.74 Tw
(the plain language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.74 Tw
(1446\(b\) simply because there is more) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(than one defendant in the case who was served on a different) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(day. In our view, it defies logic to read ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.9 Tw
(1446\(b\) any differ-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.87 Tw
(ently based on this circumstance, because the language of) Tj
0 -13 Td
.28 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.28 Tw
(1446\(b\) unequivocally requires action by a defendant \(seek-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.84 Tw
(ing removal within thirty days of being served\), not inaction.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(Equally illogical is the proposition that a first-served defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(dant in a multiple-defendant case should believe he or she) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(does not have to act simply because there will be later-served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(defendants in the case who may or may not file a notice of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.42 Tw
(removal. In such a scenario, the first-served defendant's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(excuse for failing to file a timely notice of removal borders) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(on preposterous"I did not file a notice of removal because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(I was `a' defendant instead of `the' defendant.") Tj
12 -26 Td
1.07 Tw
(To be sure, it seems eminently reasonable that, in drafting) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.42 Tw
(1446\(b\), Congress intended for the first-served defendant to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(decide within his thirty-day window whether to remove the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(case to federal court or allow the case to remain in state court.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(Such routine removal decisions are made day-in and day-out) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(in courts all across the Nation. If the first-served defendant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.81 Tw
(decides not to remove, later-served defendants are not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(deprived of any rights under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.85 Tw
(1446\(b\), because ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.85 Tw
(1446\(b\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(does not prevent them from removing the case; rather, it is the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(rule of unanimity that does. In other words, once the first-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(served defendant elects to proceed in state court, the issue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(concerning removal is decided under the rule of unanimity.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(Alternatively, if the first-served defendant does file a notice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(of removal, the later-served defendants dictate whether the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(case remains in federal court, either by joining the notice or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(declining to do so.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.75 Tw
(There is a "`strong presumption' that the plain language of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(the statute expresses congressional intent," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ardestani v. INS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(502 U.S. 129, 135 \(1991\), and it is only in rare and excep-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(tional cases where this presumption is rebutted. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.79 Tw
(case, we see no reason to depart from applying the plain lan-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(20) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
66 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
6.26 Tw
0 Tc
(considerations, expressing concern that the First-Served) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.91 Tw
(Defendant Rule: \(1\) causes later-served defendants to lose) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(their statutory right of removal through no fault of their own;) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.71 Tw
(and \(2\) eliminates the opportunity for later-served defendants) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.42 Tw
(to persuade earlier-served defendants to seek removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4 Tw
(1206-07. Third, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court reasoned that the First-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.03 Tw
(Served Defendant Rule requires reading "first-served" into) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.01 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.01 Tw
(1446\(b\), whereas ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.01 Tw
(1446\(b\), "as written, could reasonably) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.4 Tw
(be read to permit each defendant a right to remove within) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.2 Tw
(thirty days of service on the individual defendant." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.77 Tw
(1207. Fourth, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court was not convinced that the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.81 Tw
(First-Served Defendant Rule was more consistent with the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.46 Tw
(rule of unanimity than the Last-Served Defendant Rule ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.85 Tw
(Finally, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court agreed with the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(the Supreme Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( supported) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.5 Tw
(the endorsement of the Last-Served Defendant Rule. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(1207-09.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.7 Tw
(In our view, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule is the most) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
7 Tw
(logical and faithful interpretation of the operation of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.96 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.96 Tw
(1446\(b\). When interpreting any statute, we must first and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.61 Tw
(foremost strive to implement congressional intent by examin-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(ing the plain language of the statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 534 U.S. 438, 450 \(2002\). "The plainness or ambiguity) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.82 Tw
(of statutory language is determined by reference to the lan-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.44 Tw
(guage itself, the specific context in which that language is) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rob-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(inson v. Shell Oil Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 519 U.S. 337, 341 \(1997\).) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.76 Tw
(Section 1446\(b\) says that if you are a defendant in a cause) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(of action you are under an obligation to seek removal within) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(thirty days of receipt of the plaintiff's complaint. If you do not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(seek removal within the thirty-day window, you have for-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(feited your right to remove. Here, because the International) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(did not seek removal within its thirty-day window, the plain) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.96 Tw
(language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.96 Tw
(1446\(b\) dictates that it forfeited its right to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(removal.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
46 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
53 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
4.46 Tw
0 Tc
(fied of the action, and brought under a court's) Tj
0 -13 Td
.67 Tw
(authority, by formal process." . . . Thus, a defendant) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.48 Tw
(is "required to take action" as a defendantthat is,) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.61 Tw
(bound by the thirty-day limit on removal"only) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.81 Tw
(upon service of a summons or other authority-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.37 Tw
(asserting measure stating the time within which the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(party served must appear and defend." . . . The Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(essentially acknowledged the significance of formal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4 Tw
(service to the judicial process, most notably the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(importance of service in the context of the time lim-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(its on removal \(notwithstanding an earlier admoni-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(tion by the Court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(Sheets) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09, 61 S. Ct. 868, 85 L.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.37 Tw
(Ed. 1214 \(1941\), for strict construction of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(removal statute\). We conclude that, if faced with the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(issue before us today, the Court would allow each) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(defendant thirty days after receiving service within) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.96 Tw
(which to file a notice of removal, regardless of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(whenor ifpreviously served defendants had filed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(such notices.) Tj
-22 -26 Td
(254 F.3d at 756.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the plaintiff brought a wrongful death action in) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(Florida state court on February 28, 2006. 536 F.3d at 1204.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(The first defendant was served on May 12, 2006, the second) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(on May 15, 2006, the third on May 19, 2006, and the fourth) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.69 Tw
(on June 22, 2006. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On July 24, 2006 \(July 22 was a Satur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(day\), the fourth-served defendant filed a notice of removal of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(the action based on complete diversity pursuant to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(1446\(b\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(court denied. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.57 Tw
(On appeal, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court put forth a variety of reasons) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(supporting its decision to adopt the Last-Served Defendant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(Rule. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1205-09. First, the court recognized that the Last-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(Served Defendant Rule was the more recent trend in the case) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(law. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1205-06. Second, the court was driven by equitable) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
60 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.27 Tw
0 Tc
(would require the court to insert the word "`first'" into) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.18 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.18 Tw
(1446\(b\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 184 F.3d at 533. The court also observed) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.67 Tw
(that, "[i]f Congress had intended the 30-day removal period) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(to commence upon service of the first defendant, it could have) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.01 Tw
(easily so provided." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Finally, the court was persuaded that) Tj
0 -13 Td
.16 Tw
(the Last-Served Defendant Rule was necessary "as a matter of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fairness to later-served defendants." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.24 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the plaintiff filed a fraud and breach of contract) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(action in Missouri state court. 254 F.3d at 754. Two of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(defendants were served on February 1, 2000, and two were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(served on February 3, 2000. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On March 3, 2000, thirty-one) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(days after the February 1 service, but twenty-nine days after) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(the February 3 service, all the defendants \(including the fifth) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(and final defendant who had not yet been served\) jointly filed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(a notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The plaintiff filed a motion to remand,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(which the district court denied. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.62 Tw
(In its analysis, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court outlined the holdings of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(the Fifth Circuit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, our circuit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(ney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and the Sixth Circuit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and, without discussion,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.35 Tw
(found none of the positions "particularly compelling" because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(they are all "susceptible to abuse and have potential to create) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(inequities." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 756. However, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court was per-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(suaded to adopt the Last-Served Defendant Rule based on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(Supreme Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 756-57.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court held that a defendant's time to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(remove "is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(and complaint, or receipt of the complaint, `through service or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(otherwise,' after and apart from service of the summons, but) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.01 Tw
(mal service." 526 U.S. at 348. According to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court,) Tj
22 -26 Td
1.9 Tw
([In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(] [t]he Court held that formal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(process is required, noting the difference between) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(mere notice to a defendant and official service of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(process: "An individual or entity named as a defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(dant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless noti-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
4.14 Tw
0 Tc
(Finally, we considered a policy concern in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.87 Tw
(which was not present when ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was decided. In 1988,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.28 Tw
(Congress amended ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.28 Tw
(1446\(a\) to make notices of removal sub-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.6 Tw
(ject to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.07 Tw
(928. We observed that, as amended, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(1446\(a\) is a further rea-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.39 Tw
(son to allow all defendants a full thirty days to investigate the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
4.5 Tw
(appropriateness of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Otherwise, a later-served) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.41 Tw
(defendant faces a Hobson's Choice: either to join hurriedly in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.7 Tw
(a notice of removal and face possible Rule 11 sanctions or to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.37 Tw
(forego removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court's view, Congress) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.11 Tw
(did not intend to impose such a Hobson's Choice on a later-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(served defendant. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(Since our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, three other circuits have) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
3.35 Tw
(addressed the defendants-served-on-different days dilemma) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.42 Tw
(and have rejected the First-Served Defendant Rule and the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
2 Tw
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule in favor of what is commonly) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.65 Tw
(referred to as the "Last-Served Defendant Rule." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bailey) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2 Tw
(v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536 F.3d 1202, 1209 \(11th) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.03 Tw
(Cir. 2008\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 254) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.81 Tw
(F.3d 753, 757 \(8th Cir. 2001\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.84 Tw
(Packaging, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 184 F.3d 527, 533 \(6th Cir. 1999\). In a nut-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.07 Tw
(shell, the Last-Served Defendant Rule "permits each defen-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.87 Tw
(dant, upon formal service of process, thirty days to file a) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.75 Tw
(notice of removal pursuant to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(1446\(b\)," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 536 F.3d at) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.18 Tw
(1209, and "[e]arlier-served defendants may choose to join in) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(a later-served defendant's motion or not." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1207.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.74 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death action in) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
2.11 Tw
(Kentucky state court on May 12, 1994, naming two defen-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.54 Tw
(dants. 184 F.3d at 530. The first was promptly served in June) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.47 Tw
(1994, but the second was not served until the fall of 1995. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.8 Td
3 Tw
(at 530-31. Within thirty days of being served, the second) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.6 Tw
(defendant filed a notice of removal which was consented to) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.54 Tw
(by the first defendant. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 531. Thereafter, the district court) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(denied the plaintiff's motion to remand. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.3 Td
2.57 Tw
(In adopting the Last-Served Defendant Rule, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brierly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -12.8 Td
2.14 Tw
(court opined that adopting the First-Served Defendant Rule) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.81 Tw
0 Tc
(With regard to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s second holding, that a later-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(served defendant must join the notice of removal within thirty) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(days of the date of service on the first-served defendant, we) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.33 Tw
(rejected that holding. In doing so, we made three observa-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.26 Tw
(tions. First, we observed that nothing in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.26 Tw
(1446\(b\) implied "in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.07 Tw
(any way that later served defendants have less than thirty days) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.1 Tw
(in which to act." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Second, we observed that it would be "in-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.83 Tw
(equitable" to require a later-served defendant to join a timely) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(filed notice of removal within thirty days of the date of ser-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.88 Tw
(vice on the first-served defendant. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 927. Third, we) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.85 Tw
(observed that to require a later-served defendant to join a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(timely filed notice of removal within thirty days of the date) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.48 Tw
(of service on the first-served defendant would necessitate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(adding the term "first" before "defendant" in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1446\(b\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
1 Tw
(We then turned to plaintiffs' argument that they should be) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(entitled to know within a prescribed period of time whether) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(the case will proceed in state or federal court. In rejecting this) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.47 Tw
(argument, we first noted that, if the plaintiffs wanted to know) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(in which court they will be at the earliest possible date, they) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.4 Tw
(need only to make sure that all defendants are served at about) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(the same time. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Second, we noted that the plaintiffs' entitle-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.74 Tw
(ment was no greater than the defendant's right to remove a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(case that could be heard in federal court. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.3 Td
.57 Tw
(2d 391, 393 n.4 \(D. Md. 2002\) \(opining that Footnote 3 and our approval) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.98 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s first holding are ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(dicta) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Branch v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.01 Tw
(Consol.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 83 F. Supp. 2d 631, 634 \(D.S.C. 2000\) \(same\). Nevertheless, only) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.23 Tw
(one district court in this circuit has declined to follow the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Inter-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.42 Tw
(mediate Rule. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Ratliff v. Workman) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 274 F. Supp. 2d 783, 787 \(S.D. W.) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(Va. 2003\) \(declining to follow ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule because of) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(intervening Supreme Court precedent, namely, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Murphy Brothers, Inc. v.) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.41 Tw
(Michetti Pipe) Tj
( Stringing, Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 526 U.S. 344 \(1999\)\). As the court is sitting) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.4 Td
.67 Tw
(en banc) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, it is unnecessary to decide whether Footnote 3 and our approval) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.7 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s first holding are ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(dicta) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Hoffman v. Hunt) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 F.3d 575,) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.56 Tw
(584 \(4th Cir. 1997\) \("A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.09 Tw
(of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a sub-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(sequent ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(en banc) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.86 Tw
(of the Supreme Court."\) \(citations and internal quotation marks omitted\).) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -329.35 m 300 -329.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.39 Tw
0 Tc
(day from the time of service on the eighth defendant and well) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.7 Tw
(within the time limit for the twelfth defendant, but more than) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(thirty days after the first three defendants had been served. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.5 Td
1.37 Tw
(In moving to remand the case to state court, the plaintiffs) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.48 Tw
(argued that the defendants were required to consent to the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.27 Tw
(notice of removal within thirty days of service on the first) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.44 Tw
(group of defendants. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The district court rejected that con-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.37 Tw
(tention, holding that individual defendants have thirty days) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(from the time they are served with process or with a com-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(plaint to join in an otherwise valid notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.5 Td
2.25 Tw
(Our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( addressed both of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.21 Tw
(holdings concerning the timeliness of removal. With regard to) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
0 Tw
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s first holding, we noted our explicit agreement with) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.44 Tw
(that holding, stating that the first-served defendant "clearly) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(must petition for removal within thirty days." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 926. In) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.77 Tw
(Footnote 3 of our opinion, we agreed with the necessary cor-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(ollaries to the principle that a timely notice of removal must) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.2 Tw
(be filed within thirty days of service on the first-served defen-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(dant: ) Tj
22 -26.4 Td
.66 Tw
(In a different situation, where B is served more than) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.03 Tw
(30 days after A is served, two timing issues can) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.11 Tw
(arise, and the law is settled as to each. First, if A) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(petitions for removal within 30 days, the case may) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(be removed, and B can either join in the petition or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.54 Tw
(move for remand. . . . Second, if A does not petition) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.81 Tw
(for removal within 30 days, the case may not be) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(removed.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26.4 Td
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 926 n.3.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.29 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Some courts in our circuit have viewed Footnote 3 and our approval) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.76 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s first holding as ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(dicta) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, opining that it was not necessary for) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.79 Tw
(the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( court to determine whether a notice of removal must be) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.8 Tw
(filed within thirty days of service on the first-served defendant. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
.78 Tw
(Superior Painting & Contracting Co. v. Walton Tech., Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 207 F. Supp.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.45 m 300 -432.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.33 Tw
0 Tc
(defendants. Indeed, if a removal petition is filed by) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(a served defendant and another defendant is served) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.87 Tw
(after the case is thus removed, the latter defendant) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.58 Tw
(may still either accept the removal or exercise its) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.14 Tw
(right to choose the state forum by making a motion) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(to remand.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.86 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(footnote omitted\). The court also noted that, "by restrict-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(ing removal to instances in which the statute clearly permits) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(it, the [First-Served Defendant Rule] is consistent with the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(trend to limit removal jurisdiction and with the axiom that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( n.13.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.22 Tw
(Almost four years after ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we addressed the two) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.17 Tw
(questions raised by the defendants-served-on-different-days) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(dilemma and adopted what is commonly referred to as the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule." Like the First-Served Defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(dant Rule, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Intermediate Rule requires a notice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(of removal to be filed within the first-served defendant's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(thirty-day window, but gives later-served defendants thirty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(days from the date they were served to join the notice of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(removal. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.87 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, a group of dismissed employees of Mayland) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(Community College sued the college's board of trustees in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(their individual and official capacities in North Carolina state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(court, alleging unlawful discharge. 955 F.2d at 925. Three of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(the twelve defendants were served on April 25, 1988, while) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(eight others were served on May 19, 1988. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The three) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.79 Tw
(members of the first group and seven of the eight from the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(second group filed for removal on May 25, 1998, thirty days) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(after service on the first three. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The defendants could not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(find the eighth defendant in the second group to obtain her) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(consent to the notice of removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The plaintiffs served the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.44 Tw
(final, twelfth defendant after the filing of the notice of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(removal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The eighth and twelfth defendants joined in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(notice of removal on June 20, 1998, which was the thirtieth) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
27 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 1 0 R>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.5 Tw
0 Tc
(in which a co-defendant has failed to seek removal) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.63 Tw
(is in no worse position than it would have been in if) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.11 Tw
(the co-defendant had opposed removal or were) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(domiciled in the same state as the plaintiff.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -25.3 Td
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 482.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.75 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court only answered the first questionwhen) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.03 Tw
(must the notice of removal be filedposed by the defendants-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.06 Tw
(served-on-different days dilemma. Two years later, however,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.93 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 841) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.3 Tw
(F.2d 1254 \(5th Cir. 1988\), the Fifth Circuit addressed the sec-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.52 Tw
(ond question, that is, whether later-served defendants must) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1 Tw
(join the notice of removal within the first-served defendant's) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.37 Tw
(thirty-day window. The court answered the question in the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.87 Tw
(affirmative, adopting what is commonly referred to as the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.07 Tw
("First-Served Defendant Rule." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1262-63. Succinctly put,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.83 Tw
(the First-Served Defendant Rule requires a notice of removal) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.33 Tw
(to be filed within thirty days of service on the first-served) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.63 Tw
(defendant and requires all defendants to join the notice of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.88 Tw
(removal within the first-served defendant's thirty-day win-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(dow. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.2 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, three defendants were served, the first on Sep-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
2.13 Tw
(tember 3, 1986, the second on September 5, 1986, and the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.15 Tw
(third on September 24, 1986. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1256. The first and second) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.25 Tw
(defendants petitioned for removal on September 26, 1986, but) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.58 Tw
(the third defendant joined the petition on October 24, 1986,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.6 Tw
(which was thirty days after it was served but fifty-one days) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
(after the first defendant was served. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.23 Tw
(held that: \(1\) a notice of removal must be filed within thirty) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.34 Tw
(days of the date of service on the first-served defendant and) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.6 Tw
(\(2\) a later-served defendant must join the notice of removal) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.67 Tw
("no later than thirty days from the day on which the first) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.51 Tw
(defendant was served." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1263. In so holding, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Getty) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Oil) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court reasoned that the First-Served Defendant Rule) Tj
22 -25.4 Td
2.32 Tw
(promotes unanimity among the defendants without) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.86 Tw
(placing undue hardships on subsequently served) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(notice of removal must be filed within thirty days of service) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(on the first-served defendant, do all of the defendants have to) Tj
0 -13 Td
.33 Tw
(join the notice within thirty days of service on the first-served) Tj
0 -13 Td
.41 Tw
(defendant or can each defendant join within thirty-days of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(date they are served?) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.95 Tw
(The first circuit court to tackle the defendants-served-on-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
3.37 Tw
(different-days dilemma was the Fifth Circuit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(Demco, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 792 F.2d 478 \(5th Cir. 1986\). In that case, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(plaintiff filed an action in Louisiana state court and promptly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(served the then-existing defendants. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 480. After a lengthy) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(period of discovery, the plaintiff added two additional defen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(dants. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The additional defendants promptly sought removal,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(with the consent of the original-served defendants. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(response, the plaintiff and the intervenor-insurer moved to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(remand the case to state court on the ground that the removal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(was untimely. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The district court denied the motion, and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(intervenor-insurer sought and obtained permission to appeal.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.47 Tw
(On appeal, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court reversed. After finding that the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(intervenor-insurer had standing to challenge the denial of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(motion to remand, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court observed that "[t]he gen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(eral rule . . . is that `[i]f the first served defendant abstains) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(from seeking removal or does not effect a timely removal,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(subsequently served defendants cannot remove . . . due to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(rule of unanimity among defendants which is required for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(removal.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 481 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local 349) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 427) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(F.2d 325, 326-27 \(5th Cir. 1970\)\). In so observing, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Brown) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.35 Tw
(court rejected the notion that the "general rule" was unfair) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(because it prevented later-served defendants from persuading) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(earlier-served defendants to remove the case:) Tj
22 -26 Td
.5 Tw
([W]e do not perceive the suggested unfairness to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(subsequently added defendant who is merely not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(granted an opportunity that might have been avail-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(able to others. A defendant who is added to a case) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-214.6948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.16 Tw
0 Tc
(appropriate removal procedure to invoke federal jurisdiction,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.96 Tw
(and requires the defendant seeking removal to file a timely) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.18 Tw
(notice of removal stating the grounds for removal with the) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.17 Tw
(appropriate federal district court. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.17 Tw
(1446\(a\) & \(b\). In) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(order to be timely,) Tj
22 -26 Td
1.07 Tw
([t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceed-) Tj
0 -13 Td
(ing shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(relief upon which such action or proceeding is based) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(. . . .) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.53 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.53 Tw
(1446\(b\). The thirty-day window for removal is designed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.01 Tw
(to prevent "undue delay in removal and the concomitant waste) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.34 Tw
(of state judicial resources." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lovern v. Gen. Motors Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 121) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.3d 160, 163 \(4th Cir. 1997\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.55 Tw
(If a case involves a single defendant, the operation of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.85 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.85 Tw
(1446\(b\) is straightforward. The defendant must file the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(notice of removal within thirty days of service. When a case) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(involves multiple defendants, the operation of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(1446\(b\) gets) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.05 Tw
(precarious, because, unlike ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.05 Tw
(1446\(a\), ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.05 Tw
(1446\(b\) does not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(speak in terms of multiple defendants. Clearly, if all of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(defendants are served on the same day, the notice of removal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(must be filed within thirty days of the date of service, and all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(the defendants must consent to and join the notice of removal.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(See ) Tj
(Creasy v. Coleman Furniture Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 763 F.2d 656, 660) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 1985\) \(noting that "all of the defendants must agree) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.31 Tw
(to the removal of the state court action"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Abrego) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 443 F.3d 676, 681 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.44 Tw
(2006\) \(noting that all served defendants must join in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(notice of removal\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Gossmeyer v. McDonald) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 128 F.3d 481,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(489 \(7th Cir. 1997\) \(same\). However, if the defendants are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(served on different days, two questions arise. First, must the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(notice of removal be filed within thirty days of service on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(first-served defendant or can the notice be filed within thirty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(days of service on the last-served defendant? Second, if the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.48 Tw
0 Tc
(review is ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Payne ex rel. Estate of Calzada v.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.17 Tw
(Brake) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 439 F.3d 198, 203 \(4th Cir. 2006\) \("For questions con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(cerning removal to federal court, our standard of review is ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(novo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(."\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.35 Tw
("Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They pos-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.7 Tw
(sess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(. . . which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kokkonen) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.03 Tw
(v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 511 U.S. 375, 377) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.56 Tw
(\(1994\). We presume "that a cause lies outside this limited) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(jurisdiction, . . . and the burden of establishing the contrary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Removal stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(utes, in particular, must be strictly construed, inasmuch as the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(removal of cases from state to federal court raises significant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.37 Tw
(federalism concerns. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(Sheets) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 \(1941\) \("The power reserved to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(the states under the Constitution to provide for the determina-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(tion of controversies in their courts, may be restricted only by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(the action of Congress in conformity to the Judiciary Articles) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(of the Constitution."\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Healy v. Ratta) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 292 U.S. 263,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(270 \(1934\) \("Due regard for the rightful independence of state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(precise limits which the statute has defined."\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Maryland Sta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(dium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 407 F.3d 255, 260 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(2005\) \(noting our duty to construe removal jurisdiction) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(strictly because of the significant federalism concerns impli-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(cated by removal\). Doubts about the propriety of removal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(should be resolved in favor of remanding the case to state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.76 Tw
(court. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 369 F.3d 811, 816 \(4th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(Cir. 2004\) \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(en banc) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 187 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(422, 425 \(4th Cir. 1999\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.87 Tw
(Section 1441\(a\) of Title 28 of the United States Code pro-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.32 Tw
(vides that "the defendant or the defendants" may seek to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(remove "any civil action brought in a State court of which the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.7 Tw
(1441\(a\). Section 1446 of Title 28 describes the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-220.1948 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(the UAW's removal. Rather, the district court noted that the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(Retirees had "artfully" attempted to "`plead around' the pre-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.98 Tw
(emptive force of federal labor law" and that their state law) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.13 Tw
(claims were "completely pre-empted by the federal duty of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(fair representation" in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.1 Tw
(9\(a\) of the National Labor Relations) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.88 Tw
(Act, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.88 Tw
(159\(a\). \(J.A. 127\). The district court found that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.56 Tw
("[t]he breach of that duty, if any, is a matter of federal, not) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.28 Tw
(state, law." \(J.A. 127\). Concurrent with its denial of the Retir-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(ees' motion to remand, the district court granted the UAW's) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.81 Tw
(motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims were barred by) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.66 Tw
(the six-month statute of limitation contained in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.66 Tw
(10\(b\) of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(160\(b\).) Tj
12 -24.6 Td
.53 Tw
(On June 13, 2008, the Retirees filed a motion for reconsid-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.3 Tw
(eration. On the same day, the district court denied the motion.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.07 Tw
(The district court held that the joint notice of removal was) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.85 Tw
(timely filed, noting that the "case . . . [provides] an excellent) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.18 Tw
(opportunity for the Fourth Circuit to clarify whether the `first-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.2 Tw
(filed' `dictum'" in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McKinney v. Board of Trustees of Mayland) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(Community College) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 955 F.2d 924 \(4th Cir. 1992\), "means) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.44 Tw
(what it actually seems to say." \(J.A. 132\). The district court) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.63 Tw
(also reaffirmed its earlier ruling on the preemption issue, but,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.87 Tw
(curiously, the district court did not address the Retirees') Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(request for reconsideration of the statute of limitation issue.) Tj
12 -24.7 Td
1.74 Tw
(The Retirees noted a timely appeal. On appeal, a divided) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.8 Tw
(panel of this court affirmed the district court's ruling that the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.63 Tw
(joint notice of removal had been timely filed, but reversed its) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(holding that the Retirees' claims were completely preempted) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.07 Tw
(by federal labor law. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Barbour v. Int'l Union) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 594 F.3d) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(315 \(4th Cir. 2010\). On May 6, 2010, the panel opinion was) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.77 Tw
(vacated, as a majority of active circuit judges voted to rehear) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
4.52 Tw
(this case en banc. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Fourth Circuit Local Rule 35\(c\)) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.13 Tw
(\("Granting of rehearing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(en banc) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( vacates the previous panel) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(judgment and opinion."\).) Tj
146.004 -24.7 Td
(II) Tj
-134.004 -24.7 Td
1.78 Tw
(On appeal, the Retirees first challenge the district court's) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(ruling that the joint notice of removal was timely filed. Our) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
74.3052 0 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBOUR) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NTERNATIONAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
238 0 obj
<>stream
x\s
_q3vw4<}2SGއIUI%{͌s[,-PZH)r#|
>7_.o][/O
BaV"t+.VVX)rpNPnö7c6Q"m5m徬Y~e/ wmJh ܷu>,FaS
!}n_˩p.Rz|mn\%E lL.{BߗVQDus϶FDLWFClLF{5¨帧l{R\melcyh3l6"
D/|-e`&'U˒k'p0߱m'q%:x;oވ9;`s~q]&~BAN`oA",.W526~B-{~L)/g|AeIw
v0G1~q&߱#8a&dƏG$U(*H~٣p
pQfHf݀HPj9R:1ҋ/:(9@uD9:0F
"cDl(\XiEhPlh'cȘ\!L#ZYܚ&wr6'ԚP%Bm X|^Qg5xQBُ3`BdTGo5P&{xP.8oz
UDdL8̀G}vcFG BuuNH~e1;U0wz6!qJ eɘ%ݓ1;c-eOF ՒQUy#2 f#AP%:F)&ϳ"Uj
k$[MW[Tk@* "e z_Z0}fc`+S)YL<@Kl_EQ$%đu#'ZNW"Hj j}ou}O6ghq%$*Ӱ]Mo(;BL'vۑYȘ8/&Ҵ1|Lya(AG{:G3!D|?KE΅t;ByDT#l
Y&s d^CW }C#j Pe0t`/(]nˮmA@MjI=ϼ)/˧?x`"^MUS=aW/٫ hx/ Pmʞsâ
f.TZiW-,ODv\z]>RrU Jkޭښ_
7}5 ,;,^n7U[RZOx
<.vNG
He/*THF%H H;"83Մ.gLy
LTGPjBe\XD*YΉ=!gZs3y>Nߕ#چ^2htnJʮjF],Sn|&ڜNJyCP5mdzW̳#TIf<,y
%TLVjd~P;GVLt#֎sxEW$Ȉ,ύ~.0cڦ\OrL{8rWUkA
(t;vboppd?eaDヤuŎ.䗌z
'N?E:0@]gn
ZmYA*uzhz"Ⱥl6`U'xub!½ʎ}n1|d#6mA5`ۢ> iM#/-#`%ݪ'{vb6}wrnԾ& vŀ((JopFXB3s2
dY Ng/u۟X{OM?yA!ә̡f+;c`_=hcr"g;m&}W.;vo}
p%4vt2c{Zj*~%!Kl=M'wUfjm=a0|8;
!SWBԖ7{?g]aF
r[_hwg䝦(G# !7d|vvUd}]7ɰ',ody$|
y:Q PQ(xep*Y-ST{1ؾIE|2cxGY"ӳaxY&~dt6A6 vn^#4&վ0 27o }/w2k~
}Kس6H-
ECrE ʇ[7J`ľV;T0ӭw_n>~n Mх?|ʸYhs~vīA'*(+X!/+vG51٨hj sn\&Ţx=۪~=?EgM!-!hlˌȫ ؕ'
]69Rpb>G-QaYQǓb
vO}j
y'ɘlnʘ?:ttsT. Cie襀'izҽOLEAjIokxeF,LJ}97!B6l);?Ƌq~_u!R~o.oo\8S""{t?˺q'=Gv9kap+ lcpGflbEmwU