Middlebrooks v. Godwin Corporation
279 F.R.D. 8
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Lillie M. Middlebrooks, pro se, filed two DC Superior Court complaints against Godwin Corporation (Nos. 11-922 and 11-924).
- Cases arise from Godwin’s production of employment records in response to a subpoena in a prior litigation with St. Coletta of Greater Washington, Inc.
- Godwin removed the actions to federal court based on alleged diversity, asserting incorporation in Maryland and plaintiffian Virginia residency.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing removal lacked proper citizenship allegations; initial remand order granted for lack of citizenship pleading.
- Judge Howell granted reconsideration, denied remand, ordered consolidation of the two actions, and struck the complaints under Rule 8, giving 30 days for a single revised complaint in the consolidated case.
- Consolidation merged Nos. 11-922 and 11-924 into No. 11-922; plaintiff given 30 days to file a compliant revised pleading in the consolidated action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is reconsideration proper under Rule 60(b)(1) for a mistaken citizenship allegation? | Middlebrooks argues removal premised on citizenship is unclear; error in using residence leading to remand. | Godwin states its use of residency was inadvertent and citizenship was intended; seeks relief from remand denial. | Yes; reconsideration granted; error was excusable neglect, not willful. |
| Was removal proper despite service timing and alleged service defects? | Removal premature because service on Godwin in Delaware, not DC, under DC rules. | Removal allowed before service; service not a prerequisite to removal per controlling cases. | Yes; removal proper; service timing does not invalidate removal. |
| Is consolidation of the two actions appropriate? | Two complaints raise related, overlapping factual issues; separate actions waste resources. | Common questions of law/fact justify consolidation to avoid duplication and confusion. | Yes; consolidation warranted under Rule 42(a)(2). |
| Should the complaints be stricken for failure to provide a short and plain statement of a claim (Rule 8)? | Complaints contain hundreds of counts, fail Rule 8 clarity and conciseness. | Rule 8 requires concise, plain statements; pro se plaintiff’s filings are unwieldy and noncompliant. | Yes; stricken without prejudice; 30 days to file a single compliant revised complaint. |
| What is the ultimate disposition of remand and related orders? | Remand orders should stand; federal jurisdiction end with remand. | Remand orders should be vacated; consolidation and revised pleading required in federal court. | Remand orders vacated; cases consolidated; original complaints stricken; plaintiff must file a single revised complaint in 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Novak v. Capital Mgmt. and Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (residence alone insufficient for citizenship in diversity cases)
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 347 (S. Ct. 1999) (service receipt does not trigger removal time period; removal timing unaffected by service)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (briefs concisely plead claims; Rule 8 standards emphasized)
- Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (Rule 60(b) excusable neglect factors weigh into relief from judgment)
- FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v. Dem. Rep. Congo, 447 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (equitable factors govern Rule 60(b) relief; abuse of discretion standard)