Opinion

Brown v. Keene, N H , et al.

  • 2004 DNH 173
Court
District Court, D. New Hampshire
Filed
Nov 30, 2004
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.3%

The opinion

Brown v . Keene, N H , et a l . CV-04-306-SM 11/30/04

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Margaret Brown

and Melissa Brown,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil N o . 04-306-SM

Opinion N o . 2004 DNH 173

City of Keene; Keene Police

Department; Officer Darryl

Madden; Trooper Joseph

DiRusso; and Richard Flynn,

Director Department of Safety,

Defendants

O R D E R

Margaret and Melissa Brown sued the City of Keene, the Keene

Police Department, and Officer Darryl Madden (“the Keene

defendants”), as well as Trooper Joseph DiRusso and Richard

Flynn, Director of the New Hampshire Department of Safety (“the

State defendants”) in the New Hampshire Superior Court. Because

plaintiffs’ claims implicate federal subject matter jurisdiction,

the Keene defendants removed the case to this court.

The Keene defendants served the State defendants with a copy

of their petition for removal, but did not obtain the State

defendants’ consent to remove the case. See Mem. of Law in

Support of Mot. to Dismiss (attachment n o . 1 to document n o . 4 )

at 4 . Indeed, the State defendants mildly complain that they

were not consulted by the Keene defendants before the case was

removed.

It is well established that “removal statutes are strictly

construed” against removal. Danca v . Private Health Care Sys.,

Inc., 185 F.3d 1 , 4 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas

Corp. v . Sheets, 313 U.S. 1 0 0 , 108-09 (1941)). “Where there are

multiple defendants, all must consent or join in the petition for

removal.” Hill v . Phillips, Barratt, Kaiser Eng’g Ltd, 586 F.

Supp. 9 4 4 , 945 (D.N.H. 1984) (citations omitted). Here, removal

was plainly improper given the absence of prior consent by the

State defendants. The time period in which the State defendants

could properly join in the removal petition has long since

passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Accordingly, this case is

remanded to the New Hampshire Superior Court on grounds of

improper removal. The State defendants’ pending motion to

dismiss (document n o . 5 ) is moot given the order of remand.

2

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

November 3 0 , 2004

cc: Kathleen M . Mulcahey-Hampson, Esq.

Donald E . Gardner, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.