James v. MRC Receivables Corp.
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
2016 WL 3675864 (2016)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 2016 Jesse James (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court against several defendants, including Equable Ascent (Equable), Calvary Portfolio (Calvary), and a group of corporations referred to as the Midland defendants (collectively, the companies) (defendants), alleging violations of federal consumer-protection laws. Equable was served on March 17, the Midland defendants were served on March 18, and Calvary was never properly served. On April 4, the Midland defendants removed the case to federal court on federal-question jurisdiction grounds. Equable did not join the notice of removal but signed a consent to the removal, which was filed with the federal court on April 18. April 18 was the Monday following the thirtieth day after which Equable and the Midland defendants were served, because their respective 30-day periods ended on a Saturday and Sunday. Calvary did not join or consent to the notice of removal. James moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the removal was improper because the defendants did not all consent to removal before the expiration of the 30-day removal period imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The companies opposed the motion, arguing, that all the defendants in the case that were properly joined and served consented to the removal within the appropriate 30-day period.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hornsby, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.