Thomson v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, 5:12-cv-00525

Thomson alleges representation by Gonzalez and asserts attorney liens in proceedings before OESC and courts.
Gonzalez is a former Best Buy employee; Thomson's fee petition was filed March 22, 2012 in state court.
Talx removed the case to federal court on May 9, 2012; Thomson and OESC move to remand to state court.
Thomson asserts federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment against several defendants including OESC.
The court analyzes removal authority, consent requirements, and whether removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 and related caselaw.
Ruling: The case should be remanded because OESC consent to removal is required and not provided; Thomson’s remand motion becomes moot upon remand to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OESC must consent to removal.	Thomson alleges federal claims against OESC.	Talx/Best Buy contend consent not required if no federal claim against OESC.	OESC consent is required; remand proper.
Whether removal was proper under §1446(b)(2)(A).	All properly joined/served defendants must consent.	Defendants allege removal okay without consent of OESC.	Removal invalid without OESC's consent.
Whether remand to state court is warranted.	Remand appropriate if federal jurisdiction lacking.	Removal should be retained if jurisdiction exists.	Remand to Cleveland County is required.

Baby C v. Price, 138 Fed. App’x 81 (9th Cir. 2010) (removal standards and burden of proving jurisdiction)
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (burden on removing party; strict construction of removal statutes)
Fajen v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331 (10th Cir. 1982) (removal doubts resolved against removal; strict construction)