Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Federal Insurance
23 F. Supp. 3d 588
W.D. Pa.2014Background
- Parker Hannifin Corp. and Parker ITR S.R.L. sued their insurers, Federal Insurance and National Union, in Pennsylvania state court over coverage for alleged price‑fixing. Plaintiffs filed a praecipe for writ of summons on Jan. 7, 2011 and a complaint on Oct. 7, 2013.
- Federal Insurance removed the action to federal court on Oct. 7, 2013, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was improper because (1) the forum‑defendant rule barred removal because National Union is a Pennsylvania corporation and (2) removal was untimely under the one‑year limit in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
- Federal Insurance countered that National Union was not “properly joined and served” because plaintiffs’ prior writ of summons did not constitute service of a complaint under § 1441(b)(2) and that the one‑year bar in § 1446(b) did not apply because the complaint (the initial pleading) made the case removable when filed.
- The court held plaintiffs had not properly served National Union with the complaint under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 440, so the forum‑defendant rule did not bar removal.
- The court also held the one‑year limitation in the second paragraph of § 1446(b) did not apply because the initial pleading (the complaint) disclosed removability and thus the first paragraph governed the 30‑day removal window; Federal Insurance’s removal was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forum‑defendant rule (§ 1441(b)) bars removal because National Union is a Pennsylvania corporation | National Union was properly served by the praecipe/writ of summons on Jan. 7, 2011; removal is barred | Writ of summons is not proper service of the complaint for "properly joined and served"; National Union was not served with the complaint | Held for defendant: writ alone insufficient; plaintiffs did not properly serve the complaint under Pa. R. Civ. P. 440, so forum‑defendant rule does not bar removal |
| Whether the one‑year removal bar in § 1446(b) prevents removal after more than one year from commencement | The one‑year limit runs from commencement (the writ of summons, Jan. 7, 2011), so removal on Oct. 7, 2013 was untimely | The initial pleading (the complaint filed Oct. 7, 2013) made the case removable, so the first paragraph governs and removal within 30 days was timely | Held for defendant: the complaint was the initial pleading that disclosed removability, so the one‑year bar in the second paragraph does not apply and removal was timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005) (a writ of summons is not an "initial pleading" for triggering removal deadlines under § 1446(b))
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (time to remove is triggered by formal service of complaint and summons, not mere receipt)
- Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006 (3d Cir. 1987) (removal statutes strictly construed and burden on defendant to show federal jurisdiction continues)
- Kallman v. Aronchick, 981 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (discussing forum‑defendant rule and that "joined and served" requires service of complaint to prevent plaintiff gamesmanship)