Allen v. Hampton et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1.) Plf's #7 Motion to Remand is GRANTED; and 2.) This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Russell County, AL; The Clerk is DIRECTED to take the steps necessary to remand this case to the Russell County Circuit Court and to close the case in this Court. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. on 3/5/2025. (Certified copies of order and docket sheet mailed to CC of Russell Co.)(BES)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
AUDREY MARIE ALLEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TARA LYNN HAMPTON, et al.,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:25-cv-0063-RAH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion to remand this lawsuit
to the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama. In her motion, Plaintiff Audrey
Marie Allen argues that Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company has not satisfied the procedural requirements for removal, namely consent
to removal by all served defendants. The Court agrees, and therefore the Motion to
Remand will be granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Removal jurisdiction exists when the court would have had original
jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). For removal to be proper, the
removing party must comply with certain procedural requirements. See 28 U.S.C. §
1446. For example, “the law is well settled that in cases involving multiple
defendants, all defendants must consent to the removal of a case to federal court.”
Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1049 (11th Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Overlook Gardens Props., LLC
v. ORIX USA, L.P., 927 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2019); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).
“The failure to join all defendants in the petition is a defect in the removal
procedure.” In re Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., 123 F.3d 1407, 1410 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997).
1

A plaintiff may seek to remand an action to state court based on a “procedural
defect in the removal of the case.” Russell Corp., 264 F.3d at 1043–44 (citations
omitted). Because of “significant federalism concerns arising in the context of
federal removal jurisdiction,” removal rules such as the unanimity requirement must
be “strictly interpreted and enforced.” Id. at 1049. “[A]mbiguities are generally
construed against removal,” Jones v. LMR Int’l, Inc., 457 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir.
2006) (citation omitted), and “uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand,” Burns
v. Windsor Ins., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). If
procedural defects are present, remand is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue is whether Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company’s removal violated 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)’s unanimity
requirement. It did.
To satisfy the unanimity requirement, “all defendants who have been properly
joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b)(2)(A); see also Russell Corp., 264 F.3d at 1044 (discussing the unanimity
requirement). Each defendant must join in the removal by signing the notice of
removal or by explicitly stating for itself its consent on the record within the thirtyday period prescribed in § 1446(b). The thirty-day period is calculated from the date
of service on that defendant or the removing defendant, whichever is later. Bailey
v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202, 1204–05, 1207 n.8 (11th Cir. 2008)).
The Notice of Removal reveals that, on January 21, 2025, State Farm—and
State Farm only—removed this case without joinder in the Notice of Removal by
Defendant Tara Lynn Hampton or her consent. The case was removed even though
Hampton had recently been served with the Summons and Complaint on January 19,
2025. (See Doc. 1-2 at 72.) Over thirty days have passed since Hampton and State
Farm were served and the date of removal. In that time, Hampton has not filed any
2

pleading, or given any notice, signifying her joinder or consent. Because Hampton
did not timely consent, nor has she ever consented, this is a procedural defect to
removal warranting remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Bailey, 536 F.3d at 1207 (“The unanimity rule requires that all defendants consent
to and join a notice of removal in order for it to be effective.”); Hardy v. Ford Motor
Co., No. 7:09-CV-2363-TMP, 2010 WL 11561590, at *4 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 28, 2010)
(“[I]f a proper defendant in a multi-defendant case fails or declines to consent to the
removal within the thirty-day window for removal, the case is subject to remand for
a procedural defect.”); Euwema v. Osceola Cnty., No. 6:19-CV-1760-ORL-37LRH,
2019 WL 6614322, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2019) (“So if any of the three nonconsenting Defendants were properly served at the time of removal and failed to
timely consent, this is a procedural defect to removal warranting remand.”).
Recognizing this defect, State Farm argues that Hampton’s party status is a
nominal or formal one and that her lack of consent therefore can be ignored. But
Hampton is the primary tortfeasor who allegedly caused the motor vehicle accident
made the basis of this lawsuit, and consequently she is not a nominal or formal
defendant whose non-consent can be ignored. Whether Hampton was insured at the
time of the accident is irrelevant.
No exception to the unanimity requirement applies here. Thus, this lawsuit is
due to be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Russell Corp., 264 F.3d at
1044 (“Like all rules governing removal, [the] unanimity requirement must be
strictly interpreted and enforced because of the significant federalism concerns
arising in the context of federal removal jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is GRANTED; and
2. This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Russell County,
3

Alabama.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to take the steps necessary to remand this
case to the Russell County Circuit Court and to close the case in this Court.
DONE, this the 5th day of March, 2025.

R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4