indeed curable,* so that he could then file a valid Notice.
Accordingly this action is ordered to be remanded to the

Circuit Court of Cook County under Section 1447(c). And as

permitted by this District Court’s LR 81.2(b), the Clerk of this

District Court is directed to mail the certified copy of the

Co thes, P Senet

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

remand order forthwith.?

Date: January 2, 2001

2 No comment is made here as to whether, if the 30-day

clock has already run out as to Dr. O’Connor, removal could still
be available to Dr. Cordes (see the discussion in Phoenix
Container, 2000 WL 1844588, at *1). Because of the possibility
that in that event such availability would not be the case, a
current remand rather than a deferral to permit a possible cure
appears the appropriate course to take.

° Although this Court has accepted Cordes’ “information and
belief” statements for current purposes, the remand may also
allow him to substitute fact for hypothesis in one or both
instances during the limited time remaining on his 30-day clock.
It should be said, however, that such substitution is not at all
a necessary precondition to a valid and timely renewed effort at
removal.


— a

a
AUMETraertiom 067),
AS United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 8111 DATE ¥%/2001
CASE Patricia Petersen, etc. vs. Scott Cordes, M.D., et al
TITLE
Tin the following box (a) indicate the pany filing the motion, eg. plainttT, defendant, 3rd party plaintitTand (b) state briefly the wane
MOTION: of the motion being presented]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above, ]
(2) Qo Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due_
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ set for at
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OrRcP4(m) © General Rule 21 Oerrcp4iajy) O FRCP41(a)(2).
ao 4 [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. This action is ordered to be
remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County under Section 1447(c). And as permitted by this District
Court’s LR 81.2(b), the Clerk of this District Court is directed to mail the certified copy of the remand
order forthwith.
(1) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. uber ef ative
Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
* JAN ~ 3/2001
Notified counsel by telephone date doe
Docketing to mail notices.
(
Mail AO 450 form. oat docket My initials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge
12/2001
courtroom Joo, . dite sited noice
SN deputy's sO eel sx
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office rit depesy itis



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA PETERSEN, etc.,

)
Plaintiff,
v. No. 00 C 8111
)
SCOTT CORDES, M.D., et al., )
DOCKETED
Defendants. )
JAN > 3 2001

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Dr. Scott Cordes has filed a notice of removal (“Notice”) ,?’
seeking to remove from the Circuit Court of Cook County to this
District Court a medical malpractice action brought against Drs.
Cordes and Daryl O’Connor by Patricia Petersen (“Petersen”) as
Special Administrator of the Estate of decedent James Petersen.
Because the Notice is defective in one critical respect, this
Court sua sponte remands this action to the state court of
origin.

Federal jurisdiction here is sought to be grounded on
diversity of citizenship, and Dr. Cordes appears to have pushed
the right buttons in that regard:

1. Dr. Cordes ig an Illinois citizen, and he asserts

on information and belief that Dr. O’Connor is too (Notice

1 Cordes’ attorney has used the old term “Petition for
Removal” even though it has been well over a decade since 28
U.S.C. §1446 (“Section 1446”) was amended back in 1988 to change
the label to “notice of removal” (the same legislation also
changed some aspects of removal procedure) . All references to
other Title 28 provisions in this opinion will also take the form
“Section --.”


q2).
2. Notice 43 asserts-~-again on information and
belief--that Petersen is a Wisconsin citizen.
3. In compliance with this District Court’s LR
81.2(a), Dr. Cordes’ counsel sought and received an
admission from Petersen that she was claiming and would seek
damages in excess of $75,000 (Notice Ex. B), information
that had to be obtained because the Complaint had conformed
to the state law prohibition against inclusion of an express
ad damnum.
But where the Notice comes up fatally short is in its failure to
be joined in or consented to by both defendants (see, €-g.,

Phoenix Container, L.P. v. Sokoloff, No. 00-1466, 2000 WL

1844588, at *1 (7TM Cir. Dec. 18) and the century-old Supreme
Court cases cited there for that proposition) .

It is clear that Dr. Cordes has not been in touch with Dr.
O'Connor at all (else he would not have had to speculate as to
Dr. O’Connor’s citizenship on information and belief). And
because the 30-day clock as to Dr. Cordes did not begin to tick
until December 14, 2000 (Notice 47 and 8), he cannot complain
about a current remand under Sections 1446(b) and 1447(c) because

he still has ample time to cure the flaw identified here if it is