Thomas v. KFC Corporation et al, No. 2:2018cv01264 - Document 17 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER and REASONS denying 9 Motion to Remand to State Court, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/15/2018. (cbs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thomas v. KFC Corporation et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRENDA THOMAS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 18-1264 KFC CORPORATION, et al. SECTION "N" (4) ORDER AND REASONS Given the specific facts presented here, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand (Rec. Doc. 9) is DENIED for essentially the reasons set forth by Defendants in their memoranda (Rec. Docs. 10 and 13) relative to the timely filing of a written consent of removal. The Court particularly notes (1) the reference in the February 7, 2018 notice of removal (Rec. Doc. 1, ¶8) to the forthcoming separate written consent of removal;1 (2) that, on the day of removal – February 7, 2018 at 5:06 p.m. – counsel for Defendant West Quality Food Service, Inc., authorized (by email) counsel for the removing defendant to "sign the [Consent to Removal] on my behalf and 1 Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Removal states: The defendant who made a voluntary appearance in the state court litigation, namely West Quality Food Service, Inc., consents to the defendants' removal of this action to this Court. (See the unsigned Consent to Removal filed in connection with these proceedings. Counsel for West Quality Food Service, Inc., is in the process of signing the Consent to Removal at the time of this filing and the original, signed pleading will be filed into the record shortly. See Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶8. 1 Dockets.Justia.com file the Consent to Removal";2 (3) an unsigned written consent was filed by removing counsel along with the notice of removal (Rec. Doc. 1-1); and (4) a Consent to Removal signed by counsel for Defendant West Quality Food Service, Inc., was filed the very next day, on February 8, 2018, at 1:50 p.m. See Rec. Doc. 3. Based on these facts, the Court finds the requirement of "some timely filed written indication from each served defendant, or from some person or entity purporting to formally act on its behalf in this respect and to have the authority to do so, that it has actually consented to such action," to have been sufficiently met. See Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of North America, et al., 841 F.2d 1254, 1261, n.11 (5th Cir. 1988).3 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of May 2018. _________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge 2 See Rec. Doc. 10-1, pp. 1-2. 3 Given its focus on a non-lawyer purporting to act on behalf of another non-lawyer, i.e. a pro se prisoner, which is not permitted in federal court, the Court finds Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021(1998), distinguishable. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
