Delaughder v. Colonial Pipeline Co.

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Noted with Interest: "Snap Removal"

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLPOctober 21, 2022

    dant removed the case to federal court. Id. The Court expressed a distaste for the defendant having taken advantage of the courtesy copy sent by the plaintiff. Similarly, in Timbercreek, the court found that the defendant engaged in gamesmanship: the plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant nine times and was unsuccessful due to the defendant’s evasion tactics; among other things, the defendant refused to open the gate to his gated community and had his secretary at work tell the process server that the defendant was not at work when he was actually present. Timbercreek Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. De Guardiola, No. 19-cv-80062, 2019 WL 947279, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2019); see also Curtis v. Bruner, No. 9:19-CV-80739, 2019 WL 7837885, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2019) (granting motion for remand where defendant removed the case after plaintiff attempted to serve defendant and the person at the service address refused to open the door to accept service); Delaughder v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 360 F. Supp. 3d 1372, 1380 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (granting motion for remand where removing defendant changed its registered agent and did not inform plaintiff of the change in order to avoid service of process).Plaintiffs also attack snap removal under the line of cases that discuss interpretation of statutes to avoid absurd results. A result is absurd when, for example, it creates conflict between different provisions of the same act, or literal interpretation would thwart the purpose of the over-all statutory scheme. Raymond B. Yates v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1, 17-18 (2004); United States ex rel. Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001). With respect to snap removal, plaintiffs may argue that an interpretation of the removal statute that allows defendants to choose the forum, instead of plaintiffs, would lead to an absurd result. See Hawkins v. Cottrell, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (N.D. Ga. 2011); DeAngelo-Shuayto v. Organon USA Inc., 2007 WL 4365311, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2007) (denying forum defendant’s snap re