Jarjour v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
2:25-cv-00029
W.D. Wash.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Roula JarJour sued Nationstar Mortgage LLC ("Cooper") and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America after an insurance claim for property damage was denied.
- JarJour alleged that Cooper failed to pay an insurance premium or Travelers wrongfully denied coverage for a commercial property in Everett, Washington.
- The case was initially filed in Washington state court; Travelers removed the case to federal court.
- JarJour moved to remand, arguing the removal was defective: it was untimely and did not have all defendants' consent within the removal window.
- The central procedural issues were (1) timeliness of removal under the rules for service on a foreign insurer and (2) the "rule of unanimity," requiring all served defendants to timely consent to removal.
- The court granted the motion to remand, ruling the removal was procedurally defective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Removal | Removal clock started upon mailing/Commissioner service, thus untimely | Removal clock starts on insurer’s receipt from Commissioner, thus timely | Removal was timely under district precedent (clock starts at insurer receipt) |
| Rule of Unanimity (Consent to Removal) | Notice of removal was defective as Cooper's consent was not obtained within 30 days | Consent not required before appearance; Cooper's later consent should suffice | Rule of unanimity triggered by service, not appearance; untimely consent = defect |
| Curing Defect After 30 Days | Defect can't be cured after 30 days per statute | Procedural defect can be cured before judgment (based on older case law) | Procedural defect must be cured within 30 days after service; not curable later |
| Commencement of Removal Period | 30-day period began with mailing/Commissioner acceptance | 30-day period began when insurer's agent received process | 30-day period began when insurer's agent (CSC) received process |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (Removal period begins upon formal service, not just receiving the complaint)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (Doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of remand)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (Burden on defendant to establish proper removal; any doubt favors remand)
- Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952 (Addresses curing defects in removal and the rule of unanimity)