ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Southern District starts pilot program for employment cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigThe Southern District of Indiana has been experimenting this year with a pilot program for certain employment cases. The only eligible cases are individual Title VII, ADA and ADEA actions. No hostile environment, failure to hire, harassment, FLSA or class-action cases are eligible, nor are cases with mixed claims. The magistrate judges decide which of their cases to put into the program.

In cases selected, the court issues an Order Regarding Initial Discovery that imposes early and tailored disclosure requirements upon the parties. For instance, 30 days after the answer both parties must disclose core information, such as unemployment information, mitigation information, and diaries from the plaintiff, and the personnel file, relevant policies and identification of the supervisors and decision-makers from the defendant. Initial feedback from the court on the program (for instance at the 7th Circuit Conference) is positive.

Removal after 1 year in diversity actions?

In state court cases potentially removable for diversity, conventional thinking is that removal must occur within one year of commencement of the action. There are two potential exceptions: (1) where bad faith is found; and (2) where the case was not initially removable, although this is not settled.

The applicable statute, 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1), provides “A case may not be removed under subsection (b)(3) on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 more than 1 year after commencement of the action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”

The “bad faith” provision was added with the statute’s amendment as a part of Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011. As part of that amendment, Congress provided, “If the notice of removal is filed more than 1 year after commencement of the action and the district court finds that the plaintiff deliberately failed to disclose the actual amount in controversy to prevent removal, that finding shall be deemed bad faith under paragraph (1).”

There has been little caselaw on this subject. In Lever v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15193 (D. S.C. 2013), plaintiff sued in state court; the complaint stated “total amount in controversy is less than $75,000.” Defendant removed, plaintiff moved to remand, and defendant argued bad faith. The court remanded, writing, “If [the plaintiff] does not desire to try his case in the federal court he may resort to the expedient of suing for less than the jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly entitled to more, the defendant cannot remove.”

The second potential exception allowing post-one-year removal is more subtle within the statute. Recall that the statute provides that “a case may not be removed under subsection (b)(3) on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 more than 1 year after commencement of the action… .”

Recall that Section (b)(1) has the 30-day removal requirement from service of the complaint. Section (b)(3) then later provides a 30-day limitation for removal from service of an “amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable” if “the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable … .”

What, then, if the case stated by the initial pleading was removable, but a defendant was not served for more than one year? Is there are one-year limitation?

From the text of the statute, the answer should be “no,” there is only a 30-day-from-service limitation if the original complaint was removable. Caselaw on this issue is mixed and developing. Compare Brown v. Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., 284 F.3d 871, 873 (8th Cir. 2002), (“The one-year time limitation period modified only the second paragraph of § 1446(b), and therefore only applies to cases that were not removable to federal court when originally filed”); Ophnet, Inc. v. Lamensdorf, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36260 (D. Mass. 2005), (“Defendants respond first that the one-year time limit does not apply when removal was appropriate based on the initial pleadings or when a plaintiff fraudulently joined a defendant in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction. They cite to two lines of cases supporting those propositions… The Defendants’ position was plainly reasonable, given case law from other circuits on the issue”); with WMCV Phase, LLC v. Tufenkian Carpets Las Vegas, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150007 (D. Nev. 2012), (discussing issue, remanding and later awarding fees for improper removal).

Practitioners might confront this issue if a removable complaint is served upon their client more than one year after commencement of the action. Under the language of the statute, a 30-day clock for removal begins then, and the one-year limitation should not apply. But practitioners should research the issue for the most current caselaw.

Save the date – The annual Federal Civil Practice 3-hour CLE seminar will be Thursday, Dec. 19 from 1:30 to 4:45 p.m. in Indianapolis.

Run with other attorneysThe 5th Annual Joseph Maley Foundation 5K Run, Walk, Roll is set for 9 a.m. July 13 at Eagle Creek Park in Indianapolis. This event is well attended by area attorneys. To register or sponsor, see www.josephmaley.org•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT