OPINION & ORDERSYLLABUS The Forum Defendant Rule prevents a defendant from removing a state court action to federal court if the action originated in the state where a defendant resides. In this Circuit, when a plaintiff launches a state court action against multiple defendants, including both in-state and out-of-state residents, an out-of-state residing defendant may remove the case if they effect removal before the plaintiff serves the initial complaint on the in-state defendants. To effect removal, a defendant must complete three steps: file the notice of removal in federal court, give notice to the adverse parties, and file a copy of the notice of removal with the state court.In New York state court, in one lawsuit, the plaintiff sued not only defendants residing in New York, but also defendants residing in other states. Although a non-New York-residing defendant filed, in federal court, a notice of removal before the plaintiff served the New Yorkers, the defendant attempting to remove the case did not complete the process of removal before the plaintiff served the New Yorkers. The case is remanded to state court.PROCEDURAL HISTORYPlaintiffs initiated this case in New York state court on November 26, 2018. ECF No. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”). On December 3, 2018, Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (collectively, the “Johnson Defendants”) removed this case to this Court. ECF No. 1. The Johnson Defendants also filed an Answer to the Complaint on December 3, 2018.1 ECF No. 6. On January 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Remand. ECF No. 19. On January 16, 2019, the Johnson Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion. ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs replied to the Johnson Defendants’ Opposition on January 23, 2019. ECF No. 30.Plaintiffs’ Motion is deemed fully briefed. After careful consideration, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is hereby GRANTED.BACKGROUNDPlaintiffs Betsey Hardman and Jody Hardman have been married since December 9, 1972. Compl. 3. Plaintiff Betsey Hardman was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in October of 2018.2 Id. 2. Among other things, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants “mined, milled, processed, imported, designed, manufactured, assembled, marketed, supplied, distributed, sold and/or otherwise placed in the stream of commerce…products that contained asbestos.” Id. 23. Asbestos is a set of fibrous minerals known to contaminate substances such as talc. Id. 104. Exposure to asbestos has been linked to severe health hazards, like malignant pleural mesothelioma. Id. Aside from manufacturing products that contained asbestos, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to disclosure material information to Plaintiffs, negligently misrepresented the health risks associated with their products, violated the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and failed to remedy foreseeable risks inherent in their products. Id.
30, 33, 40, 66. Further, Plaintiffs allege that the “Talc Supplier Defendants” controlled industry standards and are jointly and severally liable for the harm stemming from their products. Id. 87.The facts pertinent to the disposition of the instant motion, however, are procedural in nature. Plaintiffs allege that they filed their Complaint in the Supreme Court of New York on November 26, 2018 at 2:40 p.m. Pls’. Mem. Supp. Mot. p. 9, ECF No. 19 (“Pls’ Mot.”). Plaintiffs engaged a process server to serve all joined defendants.3 Id. Defendants Bristol-Myers, Colgate, and Revlon are citizens of New York (“Forum Defendants”). Compl.
