Rules of Service Important in Removal Actions

3.3.10    By admin    Tags

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has issued another decision highlighting the critical role service of process plays in federal removal actions. Last week, in “Removal in the Sixth Circuit: Ask Questions Now, Remove Later,” I discussed a recent case in which the Court granted a plaintiff’s motion to remand because the defendant seeking removal had improperly determined which parties had been served in the case. Now, the Court has issued another opinion involving service of process in the context of a federal removal action.

In Murphy v. Studio 6, et al., 2010 WL 503126, (W.D.Tenn.2010), the plaintiff brought an action against a hotel (Studio 6), the hotel’s general manager (Ashley Davis), the hotel’s operating company (Motel 6), and the corporation that owned the real estate where the hotel was located (Berkshire Properties). The plaintiff delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Davis, who accepted service on behalf of herself and the three other defendants. When Berkshire Properties later filed a notice of removal, the plaintiff argued the notice was untimely under the federal removal statute, because more than 30 days had passed since the date of service.

The Court disagreed, finding that delivery of the summons and complaint to Davis did not constitute effective service on Berkshire Properties. Generally, service on a corporation is sufficient if made upon an individual who stands in such a position as to render it fair, reasonable and just to imply the authority on his part to receive service. In this case, Davis was not employed by Berkshire Properties — she was employed by its tenant, Motel 6, and she stood in no other relationship to Berkshire Properties. Therefore, it was not fair or reasonable for her to accept service on behalf of Berkshire Properties. As a result, the Court held the notice of removal was timely and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Related content

  1. Removal: Ascertaining the Amount in Controversy
  2. Removal in the Sixth Circuit: Ask Questions Now, Remove Later
  3. Removal: Amount in Controversy in Declaratory Judgment Actions

Comments