Dorcile v. The School District of Palm Beach County, 9:19-cv-80742

Plaintiff Charlotte Dorcile sued the School District of Palm Beach County and the School Board alleging Title VII wrongful termination.
The School Board removed the action to federal court on June 6, 2019; the School District did not join or consent in the Notice of Removal.
Dorcile moved to remand on July 8, 2019, arguing the removal violated the Rule of Unanimity (all served defendants must consent).
The Board asserted two exceptions to unanimity: (1) the District had not been served at time of removal, and (2) the District was a nominal defendant.
The Court held an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from the District’s paralegal (Lesline Alexander) and the process server about service of process.
The Court found service on the District was not properly effectuated before removal and thus denied the motion to remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal was defective under the Rule of Unanimity because the District did not consent	Removal was defective because both the Board and District were properly served and all served defendants must consent	The District had not been served at the time of removal (and alternatively was nominal), so unanimity was not required	The Court held the District had not been properly served at time of removal; unanimity rule did not require its consent, so removal was proper

Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir.) (discussing unanimity requirement for removal)
Smith v. Health Ctr. of Lake City, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (M.D. Fla.) (unanimity defect renders removal improper)
Bradwell v. Silk Greenhouse, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 940 (M.D. Fla.) (recognizing exceptions to unanimity rule)
Stone v. Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., [citation="609 F. App'x 979"] (11th Cir.) (noting strict interpretation of unanimity rule due to federalism concerns)