Cook v. The Bank Of New York, 9:21-cv-80582

Plaintiffs filed suit in Palm Beach Circuit Court on October 8, 2020, naming "Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA6" as defendant.
Summons and process were served on CT Corporation System on October 12, 2020; CT notified plaintiffs it was not the registered agent for an entity named "The Bank of New York."
CT Corp is the registered agent for "The Bank of New York, Inc.," and Bank of New York Mellon is the successor to that entity and the likely proper trustee-defendant.
Defendant (Bank of New York Mellon) submitted an affidavit that it, as successor, is the trustee named in the complaint and contended it was not formally served as required under Florida law and Murphy Bros.
Defendant filed a notice of appearance, sought to set aside a default, moved to dismiss, and later removed the case to federal court; plaintiffs moved to remand arguing untimeliness and waiver.
Magistrate Judge Reinhart recommended denying remand, finding removal timely because formal service on the named defendant never occurred and defendant did not waive removal by taking only defensive steps in state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)’s 30‑day removal clock was triggered	Service on CT Corp (Oct. 12/20) started the 30‑day removal period	No proper service on the named defendant occurred; mere receipt or service on CT Corp for a different entity doesn’t trigger the clock	Held: 30‑day clock not triggered because the named defendant was never formally served; removal was timely (Murphy Bros. applies)
Whether defendant waived right to remove by litigating in state court	Defendant litigated for months in state court (many docket entries), so it waived removal	Defendant only took defensive/status‑quo actions (appearance, motion to set aside default, motion to dismiss, protective order)	Held: No waiver; actions were defensive/status‑quo and removal was not waived (Yusefzadeh guidance)

Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (service—not mere receipt—triggers the 30‑day removal period)
Gilliam v. Smart, 809 So. 2d 905 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (Florida service rules are strictly construed; burden on party invoking jurisdiction to prove valid service)
Yusefzadeh v. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, 365 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (defensive/state‑preserving actions in state court do not constitute waiver of removal)
Dade Erection Serv., Inc. v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc., 379 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (statutory corporate service methods are exclusive and strictly construed)
Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 1469 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (maintaining the status quo in state court does not waive the right to remove)