Columbus, Georgia v. Expedia, Inc., 4:11-cv-00104

Plaintiff filed the action in state court; defendant removed to this court on August 1, 2011, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
This is the third attempted removal; prior removals occurred in 2006 and 2007 with remands for lack of jurisdiction over amount in controversy.
Plaintiff’s First Amended and Recast Complaint claimed attorney’s fees and expenses, allegedly exceeding the jurisdictional amount, prompting new removal discussions in 2011.
Removal statutes are interpreted narrowly; § 1446(b) contains a one-year limit on removal based on diversity after commencement of the action.
The court held the removal in 2011 was untimely under § 1446(b)’s one-year limit and remanded the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction.
The court declined to adopt an equitable exception to the one-year bar and refused to revisit whether the case was removable at inception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the one-year removal bar under § 1446(b) jurisdictional or procedural?	Untimely removal may be remanded; bar is jurisdictional in some views.	The one-year bar is not jurisdictional and may be waived or overlooked in certain contexts.	Untimeliness is procedural; remand possible when timely objection is raised.
Does equitable estoppel override the one-year removal limitation?	Equitable estoppel could prevent removal after the one-year period.	Tedford equitable exception may apply to timeliness.	Court declines to adopt equitable estoppel and rejects Tedford exception.
Does the case’s origination as removable affect application of the one-year bar?	If originally removable, the one-year bar might not apply.	One-year bar applies regardless of initial removability; court will not revisit prior orders.	One-year bar applies; remand appropriate.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (removal statute's one-year limit strict interpretation)
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (uncertainties resolved in favor of remand when jurisdiction is disputed)
Moore v. N. Am. Sports, Inc., 623 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2010) (untimeliness of removal is a procedural defect)
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (untimeliness as procedural, not jurisdictional)
In re Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 104 F.3d 322 (11th Cir. 1997) (procedural nature of removal timeliness)
Loftin v. Loftin, 767 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1985) (timeliness may be waived, but default rule favors remand)
Jones Management Services, LLC v. KES, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 2d 892 (E.D. Tenn. 2003) (cautions against equitable exceptions to removal statute)
Graham Comm. Realty, Inc. v. Shamsi, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (N.D. Ga. 1998) (caution against changing jurisdictional policy via judicial edits)
Tedford v. Warner-Lambert Co., 327 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003) (equitable exception to removal timeliness not adopted)
Carter v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 144 F. App’x 815 (11th Cir. 2005) (one-year bar applies to non-originally removable actions)