Category: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Posted on

Removal of State Civil Actions: Time Limitation

Removal of State Civil Actions: Time Limitation

Under federal laws, what is the time limitation for removal of Washington State civil actions to U.S. District Courts? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement




WHY DO DEFENDANTS REMOVE LAWSUITS FROM STATE COURT TO FEDERAL COURT?

In my practice, I only represent employees and former employees against their employers based upon violations of state and federal employment discrimination laws. I typically file such lawsuits in Washington State superior courts where the number of jurors required to render a verdict for my plaintiff-clients is less than unanimous. In such circumstances, employer-defendants typically attempt to remove my cases to a U.S. district court for a variety of reasons — one likely being the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict for a plaintiff victory. However, defendant-employers are sometimes oblivious to the time limitation for removal of state civil actions to federal court, and I’ve successfully used the following statue as a “shield” against removal under similar circumstances.

FEDERAL COURT: TIME LIMITATION FOR REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS

The relevant statue is 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (Procedure for removal of civil actions), and it states as follows:

(a) Generally.—

A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.

(b) Requirements; Generally.—

(1) The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.

28 U.S.C. § 1446 (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

CONCLUSION

A state-court movant must file a notice of removal of a civil action/proceeding in U.S. district court within 30 days after receipt by the defendant of a copy of the initial pleading; or within 30 days after service of summons upon defendant (if such initial pleading has been filed in court and is not required to be served upon defendant — whichever period is shorter).

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

Posted on

FRCP 35 Exams Based on Emotional Distress (9th Circuit)

FRCP 35 Exams Based on Emotional Distress (9th Circuit)

Under federal law, does a plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress place his/her mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35 exams? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement




THE GENERAL RULE

If a plaintiff objects to a FRCP 35 exam, the court has discretion to enter an order compelling examination only if the employer can establish:

(A) that a physical or mental condition of the person sought to be examined is “in controversy,” and

(B) that “good cause” exists.

See Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 667 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Courts in jurisdictions throughout the country are divided on the issue as to whether a claim of emotional distress places the plaintiff’s mental condition at issue (in controversy). But the modern trend in courts is to increasingly find that it does not.

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:  9TH CIRCUIT

The general position of courts in the 9th Circuit appears to be that a claim for emotional distress damages, by itself, is not sufficient to place the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35(a). Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998) (referencing, Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 92-97 (S.D.Cal.1995) (thoroughly surveying the relevant case law, distinguishing several unconventional cases including Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, hastings & Dodson, 820 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D.Cal.1993), and determining not to set Smedly, inter alia, as precedent)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead, the trend for 9th Circuit courts is as follows:

[T]he movant must also demonstrate that (1) the plaintiff has pled a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff has alleged a specific mental or psychiatric injury; (3) the plaintiff has pled a claim for unusually severe emotional distress; (4) the plaintiff plans to offer expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress and/or (5) the plaintiff has conceded that his or her mental condition is ” in controversy” for purposes of FRCP 35(a).

Id. (internal citation omitted).

These courts have further found that a Plaintiff merely seeking damages in excess of a million dollars for humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress does not justify a request for a mental examination. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. at 97.

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Thus, for example, a plaintiff seeking “garden variety emotional distress” damages in excess of one million dollars, pursuant to claims solely under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, may argue that he/she is not subject to FRCP 35 examination, because his/her mental condition is not in controversy (provided he/she does not satisfy the additional above mentioned requirements set forth in Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. at 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998), supra); but whoever asserts this type argument should be prepared to fight it out in Court — the defendant(s) will likely file a motion.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

Call Now Button