Clesi et al v. Dravland et al (TWP2)
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 9/17/2018. (KMK, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
BRIAN CLESI and ELISE CLESI,
Individually and as the parent and
natural guardian of E.F.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES CHURCHILL DRAVLAND,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:18-cv-124
Judge Phillips
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This civil action is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion of Remand [Doc.
13]. Plaintiffs filed this action in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, on
May 11, 2018 against defendants James Dravland and Volkswagen Group of America
Chattanooga Operations, LLC (hereinafter “Volkswagen”), for claims arising from an
automobile accident [Doc. 1-2]. Defendant Volkswagen removed the case to this Court on
June 11, 2018, based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 [Doc. 1].
Subsequent to removal, defendant Volkswagen was dismissed by stipulation and defendant
Dravland is the only remaining defendant [Doc. 11].
Although the notice of removal was purportedly filed by both defendants, the instant
motion disputes that defendant Dravland consented to removal [see Doc. 13 at p. 2].
Further, defendant Dravland states that he was served with process on June 11, 2018, the
same day on which the case was removed. 1 Thus, because he did not consent to removal,
defendant Dravland argues that remand is appropriate. Further, both parties assert that they
“prefer to litigate this case in state court” [Id. at p. 3].
The procedure for removal requires “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). As the parties note, this “rule of unanimity” has been interpreted to require
that “all defendants in the action must join in the removal petition or file their consent to
removal.” Loftis v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 342 F.3d 509, 516 (6th Cir. 2003). If all
defendants do not join or consent, the case should not be removed. Id. Accepting defense
counsel’s representation that defendant Dravland did not consent to removal, this case
should not have been removed to this Court.
A motion to remand a case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “on the
basis of any defect” in the removal procedure other than the absence of subject matter
jurisdiction must be filed within 30 days of removal. The instant motion was filed on
August 13, 2018, more than 30 days after removal and more than 30 days after defendant
Dravland was served. However, as the parties note, an error in removal procedure brought
the case here; a failure to promptly move for remand should not keep it here. The Court
agrees that the interests of justice support the remand requested by both remaining parties.
1
The Court notes that there is no evidence of service upon defendant Dravland in the record and
no appearance for defendant Dravland has been filed prior to the instant motion. The Court also
notes that these representations by defendant Dravland are made without any supporting affidavit.
2
Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion of remand [Doc. 13] will be GRANTED. An
appropriate order will be entered.
s/ Thomas W. Phillips
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?