Delalla v. Hanover Insurance, 660 F.3d 180

Delalla and NMD Marketing sued Hanover Insurance and law firm defendants Oberlies and Connor Weber & Oberlies in New Jersey state court over a settlement concerning a Slim 90 trademark dispute.
Hanover had insured Delalla and NMD; Hanover’s counsel Oberlies represented them in the settlement and later retained separate counsel.
Delalla and NMD sued in 2009; the Law Firm Defendants were served on April 23, 2009; Hanover joined the Law Firm Defendants’ removal filing on May 15, 2009.
The case was removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and the district court applied the later-served rule to timeliness of removal.
Judge Kugler denied a remand motion in 2009; the case was transferred to the EDPA in 2010; Judge Baylson later denied recusal and dismissed the case for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b).
Delalla and NMD appealed the denial of remand and also filed a mandamus petition related to the transfer order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the later-served rule applies to § 1446(b) timing for multiple defendants	Delalla argues for later-served rule; seeks remand due to untimely removal	Law Firm Defendants and Hanover support later-served rule; removal timely per each defendant	Yes, later-served rule adopted; removal timely for each defendant when served

Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974) (statutes should be read as a whole to reveal congressional intent)
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (lenient reading of the 30-day window consistent with congressional intent)
Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011) (adopts later-served rule; equitable justification)
Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2008) (supports later-served rule)
Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001) (supports later-served rule)
Barbour v. Int'l Union, 640 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2011) (discusses rule distinctions; supports later-served rule)