In the case of Ward v. Progressive Pref. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-03666-KNS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2024 Scot, J.), the Eastern Federal District Court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this UIM action that the carrier had removed from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff had argued that the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3) because the carrier filed its removal notice more than thirty (30) days after receiving a demand letter showing that the amount if controversy exceeded the $75,000.00 jurisdiction threshold.
The Plaintiff additionally argued that the case was removed to federal court more than one (1) year after the commencement of the action in violation of 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(1).
The federal court disagreed and ruled that the removal notice was timely filed under §1446(b) because Progressive removed the action within thirty (30) days of the Complaint, which was the “initial pleading” referred to in the removal statute.
The federal court additionally noted that neither §1446(b)(3) nor the 1-year limitations period under §1446(c)(1) applied to this case.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” (Feb. 22, 2024).
The federal court disagreed and ruled that the removal notice was timely filed under §1446(b) because Progressive removed the action within thirty (30) days of the Complaint, which was the “initial pleading” referred to in the removal statute.
The federal court additionally noted that neither §1446(b)(3) nor the 1-year limitations period under §1446(c)(1) applied to this case.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” (Feb. 22, 2024).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.