Sampson et al v. Pangborn Corporation et al

Filing 16

ORDER advising parties of expedited consideration of plaintiffs' motion to remand. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 9/21/2015 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHER DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
LINDA SAMPSON AND DALE SAMPSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF RIVERS SAMPSON, DECEASED,
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF RIVERS SAMPSON, DECEASED
VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-84(DCB)(MTP)

PANGBORN CORPORATION, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This case is before the Court to address the plaintiffs’
request that their Motion for Remand be given the Court’s earliest
possible attention.

On September 3, 2015, defendants Lone Star

Industries, Mine Safety Appliances Company, and Mississippi Silica
Company (“the removing defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal of
this case from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Mississippi.
The removing defendants claim that although this case was
filed in the state court on October 20, 2014, it only became
removable on August 7, 2015, “when Defendants received documents
evidencing Plaintiffs’ unequivocal and unconditional voluntary
abandonment of their claims against all parties except the three
(3) remaining Defendants, all of whom are diverse.”

(Notice of

Removal, ¶ 9).
In

their

motion

to

remand,

the

plaintiffs

assert

that

defendant E.D. Bullard Company (“Bullard”) “is not a nominal
defendant” (Motion to Remand, ¶ 3), thus implying that there are

four remaining defendants.

The plaintiffs further assert that

Bullard’s failure to consent to or join in the Notice of Removal,
as required by the “rule of unanimity,” creates a defect in the
Notice of Removal.

(Emergency Motion to Remand, ¶¶ 3-4).

The Jefferson County Circuit Court has set the trial of this
case for October 6, 2015.

The deadline for the defendants’

response to the plaintiffs’ motion to remand is September 23.

The

plaintiffs’ rebuttal is due seven days after the defendants’
response, but of course the plaintiffs may file their rebuttal
before the deadline.

The Court will give this matter its earliest

possible attention in light of the October 6 trial date.
SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of September, 2015.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2