Legal Document

526 U.S. 344119 S.Ct. 1322143 L.Ed.2d 448 MURPHY BROTHERS, INC. v. MICHETTI PIPESTRINGING, INC.(97-1909)125 F.3d 1396, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 No. 97 1909 INC., PETITIONER PIPE STRINGING, ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [April 5, 1999] Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case concerns time within which a defendant named in state-court action may remove to federal court. The governing provision is 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), specifies, relevant part, that removal notice "shall be filed thirty days after receipt by defendant, through service or otherwise, copy [complaint]." question presented whether must officially summoned appear before begins run. Or, 30-day period start earlier, on defendant's receipt, official process, "courtesy copy" complaint faxed counsel for plaintiff? 2 We read Congress' provisions light bedrock principle: An individual entity as not obliged engage litigation unless notified action, brought under court's authority, formal process. Accordingly, we hold triggered simultaneous summons complaint, "through otherwise," apart from summons, but mere unattended any service. 3 * On January 26, 1996, respondent Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. (Michetti), Alabama state court seeking damages an alleged breach contract fraud petitioner Murphy Bros., (Murphy). did serve at time, three later it file-stamped one Murphy's vice presidents. parties then engaged settlement discussions until February 12, when served local law certified mail. 4 March 13, 1996 (30 44 receiving complaint), removed 1441 United States District Court Northern Alabama.1 moved remand ground 14 too late. had been 30 date president received facsimile transmission. Consequently, asserted, was untimely provides: 5 "The civil proceeding shall initial pleading setting forth claim relief upon such based, if has required whichever shorter." (Emphasis added.) 6 denied motion commence with summons. observed phrase "or otherwise" added §1446(b) 1949 govern where commenced merely without requirement even contemporaneously. See App. A 24. said, "no field operation" Alabama, along ibid. 7 interlocutory appeal permitted pursuant 1292(b), Appeals Eleventh Circuit remanded, instructing 125 1399 (1997). held "the clock starts tick pleading." Id., 1397. "By large," appellate wrote, "our analysis ends with" words "receipt . otherwise." 1397 1398 (emphasis deleted). Because lower courts have divided process prerequisite running §1446(b),2 granted certiorari. 525 ___ (1998). II 8 Service longstanding tradition our system justice, fundamental procedural imposition defendant. At common law, writ capias ad respondendum directed sheriff secure appearance taking him into custody. J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶0.6[2. 2], p. 212 (2d ed. 1996) ("[T]he royal courts, Exchequer, Common Pleas, King's Bench obtained personam jurisdiction over same manner respondendum."). contemporary counterpart writ. International Shoe Co. Washington, 326 310, 316 (1945) given way personal other form notice."). 9 In absence (or waiver defendant), ordinarily exercise power party names Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 97, 104 (1987) ("Before satisfied."); Mississippi Publishing Corp. Murphree, 438, 444 445 (1946) ("[S]ervice procedure asserts person served."). becomes officially, take capacity, only authority-asserting measure stating defend. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(a) ("[The summons] defend, notify failure do so will result judgment default against defendant."); 12(a)(1)(A) (a answer 20 being complaint). Unless agrees waive service, continues function sine qua non directing participate forgo substantive rights. III 10 When Congress enacted §1446(b), legislators endeavor break away traditional understanding. Prior 1948, could expiration her respond law. See, e.g., 72 (1940 ed.). limits responding varied State State, however, correspondingly varied. To reduce disparity, 1948 original version provided "[t]he petition twenty commencement later." Act June 25, 62 Stat. 939, amended, C. §1446(b). According House Report, this intended "give adequate operate uniformly throughout jurisdiction." H. R. Rep. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A135 (1947). 11 soon recognized, first framed, uniformly" all States. New York, most notably, precede filing complaint. Under originally enacted, expired access 12 ensure would period, current §1446(b): [now days]3 based." May 24, 1949, §83(a), 63 101. accompanying Senate Report explained: 13 "In some suits are begun necessity later. As section now stands, places position having steps suit he knows what about. said herein proposed rewritten, file his made available him) plaintiff based prayed for. It believed meet varying conditions practice States." S. 303, 81st (1949). also 352, (1949) ("The paragraph amendment subsection (b) corrects [the York problem] providing need plaintiff's pleading.").4 Nothing legislative history much hints Congress, making changes accommodate atypical procedures, dispense historic trigger responsive defendant.5 IV 15 relied "plain meaning" panel perceived. F.3d, 1398. Circuit's view, because term " '[r]eceipt' nominal 'receive,' means broadly 'to come possession of' 'acquire,' '[receipt] otherwise' opens universe besides putting complaint." Ibid. What dimensions "universe"? uninformative. Nor can tenably maintain provide clue. Cf. Potter McCauley, 186 F. Supp. 146, 149 (Md. 1960) ("It possible definitely general terms precise scope effect word 'otherwise' its context here proper application particular situations vary requirements."); Apache Nitrogen Products, Harbor Ins. 145 D. 674, 679 (Ariz. 1993) ("[I]f fact 'service plain meaning, cases hopelessly split their interpretation."). 16 interpretation adopted adheres tradition, makes sense assures defendants decide observed, various fit another four main categories. Potter, Supp., 149. each categories, no less than more depending received. 17 summarized possibilities follows. First, together, runs once. Second, furnished sometime after, Third, court, rules, required, filing. Finally, prior 18 Notably, Civil Procedure 81(c), amended uses identical language specifying once removed: 19 answered, present defenses objections these rules otherwise 81(c) sensibly interpreted afford least respond. Silva Madison, 69 1368, 1376 1377 (CA7 1995). Silva, Seventh "nothing justify concluding drafters, quest evenhandedness promptness abrogate something process." 1376. reaching conclusion, distinguished earlier decision, Roe O'Donohue, 38 298 1994), receive But, maintains amicus curiae brief, "did adequately explain why who yet lawfully should heard." Brief Amicus Curiae n. 4. If, rightly determined, "service purposes bypass starter §1446(b)'s clock. differently Roe, moreover, undercuts inevitably meaning."6 21 Furthermore, so-called rule" starting however informally, despite could, notable unfairness individuals entities foreign nations. machines transmit instantaneously, abroad longer days,7 plaintiffs "would able dodge requirements international treaties trap opponents keeping courts." 22 23 sum, clearer statement extend (by adding complaint) strange change set acts, render sole instance one's rights slip i.e., subject authority. reasons stated opinion, reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 24 ordered. Notes 25 1. invoked 1332 diversity citizenship. Canadian company principal place business Alberta, Canada; Illinois corporation State. 26 2. Compare Reece Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 839, 841 (CA5 (removal means, just process); 298, 303 1994) ("Once possesses promptly wants proceed."), Bowman Weeks Marine, 936 329, 333 (SC Baratt Phoenix Mut. Life 787 333, 336 (WDNY 1992) (proper period). 27 3. extended 1965. September 29, 1965, 79 887. second half revised "within shorter," §83(b), 101, address situation Kentucky, issued, require ("Th[e clause §1446(b)], more, create difficulty those States, issuance Accordingly provides summons."). 29 5. evident, too, foreseen posed case, for, "[i]n anticipate use facsmile [sic] transmissions." 23, Indeed, photocopy machine scene time. Encyclopae ;dia Britannica 400 (15th 1985) (noting photocopiers become commercial 1950"). 6. Contrary suggestion oral argument, see Tr. Oral Arg. 7, 1448 does support position. That district perfected completed new issued court." §1448 requires action. statute simply allows unserved perfect flawed removed. fact, §1448, "[t]his deprive whom right move case," explicitly reserves (move remand) perfected. 31 7. 4(f) (describing country). Rehnquist, J., dissenting 32 33 34 35 Chief Scalia Thomas join, dissenting. 36 Respondent I believe 1446(b). little control, opting instead superimpose judicially created onto doing, departs Court's strictly construing similar jurisdictional statutes. Shamrock Oil Gas Sheets, 313 100, 108 109 (1941). issue cogent correct, (1997), affirm dismissal petitioner's

Classification Label: 8