Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00160/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00160-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

1

The Court’s briefing schedule allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to file a reply brief. 

(Doc. 9). Because, as discussed in text, the plaintiff plainly is entitled to remand, the Court

addresses the motion without awaiting the plaintiff’s reply.

2

Accord In re: Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp., 837 F.2d 432, 434 n.2 (11th Cir.

1988); Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Local 349,

427 F.2d 325, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1970).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE COSTON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0160-WS-M

 )

WILLIAM E. WRIGHT, et al., )

 )

Defendants )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. 6). The

removing defendants have responded, (Doc. 13), and the motion is ripe for resolution.1

 After

carefully considering the foregoing, and other relevant material in the file, the Court concludes

that the motion to remand is due to be granted.

Congress has specified that “[a] defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil

action ... shall file in the district court ... a notice of removal ....” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Although

this language does not expressly contemplate that removal be agreed to by all defendants, “[t]he

unanimity requirement mandates that in cases involving multiple defendants, all defendants must

consent to removal.” Russell Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1044 (11th

Cir. 2001).2

The complaint names three defendants: William E. Wright and Gustin, Cothern &

Tucker, Inc., who removed this action, and Sagamore Insurance Company (“Sagamore”), who

did not join in or consent to removal. The file reflects that Sagamore was served with process on

February 21, 2006. (Doc. 10, Exhibit 1). To satisfy the unanimity requirement, Sagamore was

therefore required to join in or consent to removal. The removing defendants dispute neither the

Case 1:06-cv-00160-WS-M Document 14 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

law nor the fact and timing of service on Sagamore. (Doc. 13 at 3, ¶ 5). They suggest instead

that perhaps Sagamore has not retained legal counsel. This may or may not be so, but it has

nothing to do with whether Sagamore was required to join in or consent to removal. It was

incumbent upon the removing defendants to contact Sagamore and solicit its cooperation in

obtaining removal within 30 days of service. Having failed to do so, they cannot maintain a

federal forum in the face of the plaintiff’s timely objection.

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted. This action

is remanded to the Circuit Court of Monroe County. 

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00160-WS-M Document 14 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 2