785 F. Supp. 2d 1361
N.D. Ga.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Hawkins sued Cottrell in Hall County Superior Court for permanent injuries from allegedly defective car haulers; no damages amount pleaded.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction and a $75,000 amount in controversy.
- Plaintiffs are Tennessee residents; Defendant is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand arguing (i) forum defendant rule bars removal by unserved forum defendant and (ii) the amount in controversy is not established.
- Court analyzes removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), the forum defendant rule, and the amount-in-controversy standard, reaching remand.
- Court ultimately remands to state court and denies costs; discusses historical context and statutory interpretation of the joined and served requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a forum defendant may remove before service | Hawkins argues forum defendant cannot remove when unserved. | Cottrell contends § 1441(b) allows unserved forum defendant to remove. | Remand required; forum defendant cannot remove in this case. |
| Whether the statute's plain meaning permits removal by an unserved forum defendant | Statutory language allows removal by unserved forum defendant. | Plain language supports removal by unserved forum defendant. | Court assumes plain meaning but still remands on absurd results/interpretation. |
| Whether amount-in-controversy is satisfied | Complaint lacks specific damages; defendant bears burden to prove amount exceeds $75,000. | It is facially apparent the amount exceeds $75,000; evidence not provided but presumed. | Remand affirming lack of demonstrable amount in controversy; jurisdiction not shown. |
| Whether costs-on-remand are improper or proper | Plaintiffs seek costs and attorney fees due to improper removal. | Removal may be reasonable given conflicting authority; costs not appropriate here. | Costs denied; remand granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shotz v. City of Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain-meaning rule and construction tools)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (S. Ct. 2005) (statutory text governs; avoid legislative history unless ambiguous)
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (S. Ct. 1999) (service as trigger for removal timing)
- Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1939) (origin of forum-defendant concerns and good-faith considerations)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1941) (limits of removal statute; federalism perspective)
- West v. Aurora City, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 139 (U.S. 1867) (organization of removal principles and 'pending' concept)
- Case of Sewing Machine Co., 85 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1873) (early interpretation of removal rights and diversity)
- Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1989) (absurd results doctrine and statutory interpretation guidance)