2:25-cv-00107
W.D. Wash.Apr 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Rhine, a former employee, sued multiple DML Capital and Lionscove entities after being terminated in October 2021, alleging retaliation and discrimination under federal and state law.
- Rhine filed his lawsuit in King County Superior Court on October 7, 2024, and attempted service via email, e-service, and eventually personal delivery.
- The Defendants removed the case to federal court on January 16, 2025, citing federal question jurisdiction based on Title VII and ADA claims.
- Rhine, proceeding pro se, moved to remand the case to state court, arguing improper removal based on untimeliness, failure of all defendants to join, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a local controversy exception.
- The court examined whether service was properly effectuated and the timeliness and procedural propriety of the removal under the relevant statutes and rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Removal | Service was effected via e-service in October or December, so removal was late | Personal service is required; removal clock started later | Removal was timely—clock started after personal service |
| Joinder of All Defendants | Not all defendants, specifically Campos, joined removal | Campos not properly served, so not required to join | Joinder not required; Campos not properly served |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims | Federal claims present; court has jurisdiction | Federal question on face; jurisdiction proper |
| State vs. Federal Law Handling | Definitions differ, so state court is proper forum | Federal court can handle mixed state and federal issues | Federal court can adjudicate issues despite definitional differences |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (formal service required before removal clock starts)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (removal only proper where federal jurisdiction exists on complaint's face)
- Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952 (all properly served defendants must join in removal)
- Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966 (procedural defect at removal not grounds to remand if cured before judgment)