Judge Rejects Oklahoma Company's Attempt to Keep Injury Suit Out of Phila. Court
U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiff Eric Scalla's motion to remand the case from federal court to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
December 03, 2018 at 04:18 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge has ordered that a personal injury suit against an Oklahoma company involving claims of a defective crane must be transferred back to state court, finding that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely.
U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiff Eric Scalla's motion to remand the case from federal court to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The parties disagreed over the time process was served, and therefore, whether the removal of the case from state to federal court was timely.
The case stems from a March 2016 incident in which Scalla was working with a KWS F 33210 clevis cradle style grab hook, manufactured by defendant KWS Inc., to move excavation equipment.
According to Slomsky's opinion, the equipment unexpectedly came unhooked and fell on Scalla's foot. The injury required an amputation. Scalla alleged the incident was caused by a defective and dangerous condition involving the chain hook.
On Jan. 23, the complaint was served to KWS at its headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The company's vice president of operations, Elizabeth Roberts, accepted service on that date.
“According to documents filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of Oklahoma, Roberts is also authorized to receive service of process on behalf of defendant KWS. Neither Roberts nor anyone else at KWS took any action to respond timely to the complaint after receiving it,” Slomsky said.
A return receipt showed that service was complete on the date that Scalla claimed, not five months later as the defendant argued. Still, KWS contested the point.
“The record does not support this argument. Plaintiff's counsel has submitted an affidavit confirming that the Office of the Secretary of State of Oklahoma issued the documents he relies on,” Slomsky said. “Further, the documents themselves are signed and sealed. They show that from September 8, 2009, to May 31, 2018, Roberts was the registered agent of KWS to accept service of process. This time period covers January 23, 2018, the date that service of the complaint was made on Roberts. Defendant offers no evidence that another registered agent for service of process existed at the time the complaint was served.”
Slomsky added, “Defendant's further argument that service was improper because the mailing was not addressed to Ms. Roberts is also unpersuasive.”
The judge concluded that because service was rendered on time, the defendant's removal of the case to federal court was untimely.
“Given that Roberts was an authorized agent to accept service of process, defendant's time for removal began on January 23, 2018, when it was served with the complaint. Defendant argues that the time for removal began to run on March 27, 2018, the date on which it first received notice of this lawsuit through an email from plaintiff's counsel attaching the praecipe to enter default judgment. But as discussed above, on January 23, 2018, KWS was properly served with the complaint, and the 30-day time period for removal began to run on this day,” Slomsky said.
The judge did, however, reject Scalla's request for fees and costs associated with the remand to state court.
“In this case, there was an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal even though it was untimely and a remand is warranted,” Slomsky said. ”First, there was diversity of citizenship between the parties in this case. Second, though its contentions were unpersuasive, defendant asserted that it received notice of this case for the first time on March 27, 2018, when plaintiff's counsel sent an email to KWS notifying them that the company was in default for failure to respond to the complaint. There is no reason to believe that defendant's position is not asserted in good faith.”
Daniel Hessel of Golkow Hessel represents Scalla.
“The defendant's registered agent and vice president of operations testified that she had a practice of not opening mail unless she recognized the sender, even if the mail was certified and from a law firm,” Hessel said. “We argued that this head-in-the-sand practice of ignoring certified mail did not excuse the failure to remove a lawsuit in a timely fashion. We are pleased Judge Slomsky agreed with us on this issue, and all others, in his thoughtful opinion.”
Michael Falk of Reed Smith, who represents KWS, said, “We disagree with the decision factually and legally, and we are evaluating avenues of appeal.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250