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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT