Opinion ID: 812235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Procedural Defects

Text: Sellers also challenged the propriety of the removal on two procedural grounds. First, they argued that removal was improper because Athar did not consent to the removal. If a case is removed based solely on federal diversity jurisdiction, “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Option One argued that Athar’s consent was not necessary because Athar was only a nominal party, he had not been served at the time the case was removed, and, in any event, Option One had been informed that he was dead. The Kansas District Court concluded that Athar’s consent to removal was not necessary because he had not been served at the time Option One filed its notice of removal. On appeal Sellers argue that Athar was not simply a nominal party and that the Kansas District Court should have remanded the case to state court because he did not join in the removal. We reject the argument as contrary to the clear statutory language requiring only served defendants to consent to removal. Sellers also challenged the removal on the ground that Option One failed to include with its notice of removal the required copies of all the summonses served on -8- defendants. A defendant who wishes to remove a case from state to federal court must, within 30 days after receipt of the complaint, file a notice of removal in federal court “together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant . . . in such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), (b). Option One was served with the complaint on June 28 and filed its notice of removal on July 22. It failed to include copies of the summonses with its notice of removal.7 But immediately after Sellers raised the defect in their motion to remand on July 27, Option One filed in the Kansas District Court copies of all the state-court pleadings, including the summonses. In its response to Sellers’ motion to remand, Option One argued that its July 27 filing cured the original defect. Sellers’ reply did not address the sufficiency of Option One’s attempt to cure the defect; it simply reiterated their argument that the failure to include the summonses with the notice of removal necessitated a remand. The Kansas District Court concluded that no remand was warranted because Option One had filed all the necessary state-court pleadings, including the summonses that Sellers contended were missing. Sellers renew on appeal their argument that the omission of the summonses in the notice of removal required a remand. We reject the argument. A removing defendant’s failure to attach to its notice of removal the required state-court documents--in particular, a summons--is a procedural defect that can be cured, either 7 Although the parties failed to include a copy of the notice of removal in their appendices, we may take judicial notice of it as well. -9- before or after the 30-day removal period. See Countryman v. Farmers Ins. Exchg.,