Crumb v. McDonald's Corporation et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 27 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time. Plaintiff may have to and including August 28, 2015, to respond to 16 motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (c/m to Plaintiff 8/4/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/4/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
EALISE CRUMB
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 15-1719

:
McDONALD’S CORPORATION, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Ealise Crumb, proceeding pro
se, filed a complaint against multiple defendants in the Circuit
Court

for

Prince

George’s

County,

Maryland.

(ECF

No.

2).

Defendants removed the action to this court on June 11, 2015 on
the

basis

Attached

of

to

federal

the

question

removal

jurisdiction.

notice

is

a

(ECF

certificate

No.

of

1).

service

indicating that copies were mailed to all parties, including
Plaintiff, on June 11, 2015.

Defendants subsequently moved to

dismiss or for summary judgment on June 18, 2015, (ECF No. 16),
and a Roseboro notice was mailed to Plaintiff (ECF No. 17).
On

June

23,

2015,

the

court

received

a

letter

from

Plaintiff indicating that she had not been provided with a copy
of any document filed in this case except the answer filed by
Defendants Alvarez and Ram Foods, Inc.

(ECF No. 18).

1,

letter

2015,

the

court

received

another

from

On July
Plaintiff

indicating that, on June 30, 2015, she received from Prince

George’s County a stack of loose papers consisting of 101 pages
and identified each document that was included in the mailing
she

received.

(ECF

No.

22).

Plaintiff

also

specified

the

documents she has not yet received, including the Notice of
Removal.

The court issued an order on July 2, 2015, construing

Plaintiff’s correspondence as a motion for the court to order
Defendants to provide Plaintiff copies of certain filings and
for an extension of time to respond to the dispositive motion.
(ECF No. 23).
filings

she

Defendants were directed to mail to Plaintiff the
stated

she

had

not

received

and

to

file

a

certificate of service with the court reflecting said mailing,
and extending the time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’
dispositive

motion

until

July

20,

2015.

(Id.

Defendants thereafter filed certificates of service.

at

2-3).

(ECF No.

25).
On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to extend two
deadlines:

the time to move to remand, and the time to respond

to the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

(ECF No. 27).

Plaintiff indicates in her motion that she did not receive any
of

the

filings

in

the

case

until

June

25,

2015,

purportedly received 101 “loosely unstapled pages.”
7).
2

when

she

(Id. at 6-

It appears that counsel for Prince George’s County might
have prematurely filed a Notice of Removal in the Circuit Court,
dated May 26, 2015.

Counsel did not actually remove the case

until June 11, 2015.

Plaintiff states that she became aware of

the removal at least by June 8, 2015, when she visited the
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to review her file and
saw the Notice of Removal, date stamped May 26, 2015.
27 at 3, and 27-5).

(ECF No.

Plaintiff made efforts by contacting both

clerk’s offices to find out the status of the case, but the time
lag between filing the notice in state court and filing in this
court caused some confusion.
Plaintiff requests an extension of time of forty-six (46)
days to file a motion to remand and an opposition to Defendants’
dispositive

motion.

Prince

George’s

County

consents

to

extending the time to respond to its motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment, but suggests the request is for too long a
time.

(ECF No. 28).

for moving to remand.

It opposes the request to extend the time
(ECF No. 29).

There is no time limit for filing a motion to remand based
on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus Plaintiff does
not need an extension of time for that purpose.

On the other

hand, a motion to remand must be filed within thirty (30) days
3

after the notice of removal is filed if the basis for remand is
“any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
U.S.C. § 1447(c) (emphasis added).

28

Plaintiff seeks an extension

of time to move to remand because defense counsel allegedly
failed to mail to her the Notice of Removal when the action was
removed on June 11, 2015.

The Notice of Removal contains a

certificate of service indicating that a copy of the Notice was
sent on June 11, 2015 by first class mail, postage pre-paid to
Plaintiff’s

address

of

record.

(See

ECF

No.

1,

at

4).

Moreover, by Plaintiff’s own admission, she became aware that
Defendants had removed (or planned to) remove the action by June
8, 2015.

(ECF No. 27, at 3).

The clerk of this court mailed a

letter to her on June 15, 2015, advising her of the removal.
(ECF No. 10).

The court received a letter from Plaintiff on

June 23, 2015, (ECF No. 18), well within the thirty day period
after removal.
In any event, it is not at all clear that the court even
has the authority to extend the time to file a motion to remand
based on procedural defects.

See,

e.g.,

Trustees of United

Teachers of New Orleans Health & Welfare Fund v. Hanover Ins.
Co., Civ. Action No. 06-6799, 2006 WL 3845001, at *1 (E.D.La.
Dec. 29, 2006); Shock v. CDI Affiliated Services, Inc., No. CV4

09-635-S-BLW, 2010 WL 672148, at *2-3 (D.Idaho. Feb. 20, 2010)
(“Here, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time was filed on
January

19,

2010,

which

is

more

than

thirty

days

after

Defendants filed the Notice of Removal on December 8, 2009.
Given

the

thirty-day

statutory

limit,

and

because

the

court

cannot find any other basis to grant an extension of time in
these circumstances, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time
is denied to the extent that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand raises
defects

other

than

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.”).

Although Plaintiff’s request to extend the time was itself filed
within

the

thirty

day

period,

substantive reason for remand.

it

fails

to

identify

any

Thus, to the extent Plaintiff

seeks permission to file a late motion to remand, the request
will be denied.

On the other hand, the request to extend time

to respond to the motion to dismiss will be granted.1

1

Plaintiff indicates that she will “file a motion for
sanctions against the attorneys for the County Defendants for
their blatant and abusive tactics of knowingly misleading
Plaintiff and the Court.” (ECF No. 27, at 8). Defendants have
filed an opposition to what they have construed as Plaintiff’s
request for an extension of time to file a motion for sanctions.
(ECF No. 30). Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time
to move for sanctions, however, but merely indicated her
intention to file such a motion.
Although the record does not
reflect a basis for sanctioning Defendants, the court need not
decide the propriety of such a motion before it is even filed.
5

Accordingly, it is this 4th day of August, 2015, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 27)

BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
2.

Plaintiff may have to and including August 28, 2015,

to respond to the motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Prince George’s
County,

Maryland,

Prince

George’s

County

Human

Relations

Commission, and D. Michael Lyles; and
3.

The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order

directly to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

6