Opinion ID: 48281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Obtain Consent for Removal

Text: 13 Plaintiffs argue that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Union Pacific's removal was invalid because it lacked the consent of Flores and Trevino. To support this argument, Plaintiffs cite Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1262 (5th Cir.1988). Getty Oil, however, states that [28 U.S.C. § 1446] has been interpreted to require that all then-served properly joined defendants join in the removal petition. Id. at 1262 (emphasis added). This statement does not support Plaintiffs' position, since Union Pacific claims that Flores and Trevino were not properly joined. In Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir.1993), this court held that a removing party need not obtain the consent of a co-defendant that the removing party contends is improperly joined. The Jernigan court explained that such a requirement would be nonsensical, as removal in those cases is based on the contention that no other proper defendant exists. Id. Therefore, the district court was correct in holding that the absence of consent by Flores and Trevino did not render Union Pacific's removal invalid. 14