Opinion ID: 3185830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Objection to Removal

Text: Jurach first argues that the district court erred by not granting her motion to remand, which she filed as an alternative pleading to a motion to amend her complaint. The motion to remand was based on the timeliness of Safety Vision’s removal, which is a procedural challenge that may be waived. See Harris v. Edward Hyman Co., 664 F.2d 943, 945 (5th Cir. 1981) (noting that “strict compliance with the limitations period in the removal statute does not affect the jurisdiction of the district court and that ‘failure to file the petition within the allotted time may be waived’”) (quoting Weeks v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 218 F.2d 503, 504 (5th Cir. 1955)). Although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the alternative pleading of inconsistent claims and defenses, a plaintiff risks waiver by participating in federal court 6 Case: 15-20018 Document: 00513425294 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 No. 15-20018 proceedings, beyond the filing of a motion to remand. See Harris, 664 F.2d at 945. Other circuits too have made this point clear. See Koehnen v. Herald Fire Ins. Co., 89 F. 3d 525, 529 (8th Cir. 1996). 1 In this case, Jurach couched her request for remand as a fall back to her motion to amend, stating at the outset of the pleading: “[I]f the motion to amend is not granted, Plaintiff moves the court to remand this action.” Because the district court granted the motion to amend, it is not necessary for us to consider the issue of whether a plaintiff may move for remand in the alternative, without waiving a procedural objection to removal, and, if so, whether Jurach erred in the order of her motions. She received the very object of her design.