937 F.3d 1144
8th Cir.2019Background
- Roger Brooks sued Liberty Life Assurance of Boston in Arkansas state court seeking long-term disability benefits.
- Liberty Life’s attorney, who was not licensed to practice in Arkansas (but was licensed in federal court), filed a notice of removal in federal court and faxed a copy to the Arkansas state court.
- An Arkansas state-court deputy clerk, aware the attorney lacked an Arkansas license, nevertheless accepted the copy and stamped it "FILED."
- Brooks moved to remand, arguing the notice was ineffective because Arkansas law treats filings by non‑licensed persons as nullities.
- The district court denied remand and, after merits briefing, entered judgment for Liberty Life; Brooks appealed only the remand ruling.
- The Eighth Circuit held removal effective under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 because delivering the notice and having the state clerk stamp it "FILED" satisfied the federal filing requirement, and state-law rules about unauthorized pleadings do not defeat the federal removal statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a copy of a federal notice of removal "filed with the clerk of [the] State court" under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) is effective when the copy is delivered and the state clerk stamps it "FILED," but the person delivering it is not licensed in that State | Brooks: The notice was ineffective because Arkansas law deems filings by non‑licensed persons nullities, so the attorney lacked authority to file in state court. | Liberty Life: Federal removal procedure controls; the federal statute is satisfied once the state clerk accepts and files the copy, regardless of state-law rules about who may file pleadings. | The court held removal effective: the clerk’s "FILED" stamp made the notice part of the state record, satisfying § 1446(d); state-law invalidity of the unauthorized pleading does not prevent federal removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansen v. W. Branch Cmty. Sch. Dist., 674 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210 (8th Cir. 1996) (removal is effected when notice is filed with the state court)
- DeSoto Gathering Co. v. Hill, 531 S.W.3d 396 (Ark. 2017) (Arkansas rule that pleadings filed by non‑licensed persons are nullities)