Two months ago I blogged about  DeLalla v. Hanover Ins., No. 10-3933 (3rd Cir. Oct. 12, 2011), a case in which the Third Circuit held that, when it comes to removal, each defendant gets its own thirty-day window to file a Notice of Removal such that a later-served defendant is not foreclosed from seeking removal if the thirty-day window has already closed on the first-served defendant.  As befitting a precedential Third Circuit decision, there was clearly a lot of effort put into the 22 page opinion.

Which will now languish in the pile of cases never to be cited again.  Why?  Because Congress passed, and on Wednesday the President signed, the  Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act.  It contains a variety of little tweaks and, theoretically, fixes to the removal and remand procedures in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, including revisions to section 1446(b), which now has a new subsection (2)  that reads:

    (A) When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.

    (B) Each defendant shall have 30 days after receipt by or service on that defendant of the initial pleading or summons described in paragraph (1) to file the notice of removal.

    (C) If defendants are served at different times, and a later- served defendant files a notice of removal, any earlier-served defendant may consent to the removal even though that earlier-served defendant did not previously initiate or consent to removal.

Can’t get much clearer than that.

Share | Email| Print| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Legislation, Procedure, Removal