Barbour v. International Union, 640 F.3d 599

Twenty-three former Chrysler employees (Retirees) sued the UAW and Local Unions in Maryland state court for negligent misrepresentation and negligence.
Retirees retired Jan 31, 2007 after being advised by the UAW to delay retirement to secure 2007 incentives; Chrysler later offered a retirement package excluding the Retirees.
Defendants filed a joint notice of removal to the district court, asserting federal jurisdiction based on the NLRA and the duty of fair representation.
The district court held the removal timely and dismissed on § 10(b) limitations grounds, and denied remand.
A divided Fourth Circuit panel previously affirmed timeliness but held the claims were not completely preempted; en banc vacated and remanded for reconsideration of timeliness.
On review, the court held removal was untimely under § 1446(b) and remanded to state court; the preemption issues were not reached.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal was timely under § 1446(b).	Retirees contended removal was timely or not properly filed.	UAW contends removal complied with timing rules under McKinney Intermediate Rule.	Removal untimely; remanded to state court.

Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988) (first-served rule; requires removal within 30 days of first service and unanimity)
Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1986) (unanimity rule for multiple defendants in removal)
McKinney v. Board of Trustees of Maryland Community College, 955 F.2d 924 (4th Cir. 1992) (McKinney Intermediate Rule; timely removal within first defendant’s window with later joiners)
Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2008) (last-served defendant rule; equity and statutory reading favor later joinder)
Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001) (advances Last-Served Rule based on Murphy Brothers)
Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999) (advocates Last-Served Rule; comparative fairness analysis)
Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1999) (service of process triggers 30-day removal window; formal service required)
Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2005) (complete preemption rare; delineates jurisdictional approach)
Richardson v. United Steelworkers, 864 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1989) (complete preemption under NLRA used to assert federal jurisdiction in some cases)