ARNOLD v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION et al
| STACEY ARNOLD |
| AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION and METRO INVESTIGATION & RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC. |
| 1:2024cv00635 |
| March 5, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Dabney L Friedrich |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case Remanded to Superior Court re 4/5/2024 MINUTE Order on Motion for Reconsideration. (mg) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Transfer due by 4/25/2024. (zjch, ) |
| Filing 20 REPLY re #18 Response to Order of the Court filed by STACEY ARNOLD. (mg) |
MINUTE ORDER. On March 12, 2024, the plaintiff moved to remand this action to D.C. Superior Court based on this Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Emergency Mot. for Remand, Dkt. 5. Although difficult to parse, her motion contended (1) the Court lacked diversity jurisdiction because "'the amount in controversy' is [not] in access [sic] of 75,000 exclusive of interest and costs" and (2) the District of Columbia's long-arm statute was satisfied. See id. at 36. The Court denied the motion, concluding that under 28 U.S.C. 1332 it had diversity jurisdiction because the matter in controversy plainly exceeded $75,000 and there was complete diversity of citizenship. See Min. Order of Mar. 13, 2024. On March 19, 2024, however, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's denial, emphasizing an argument only obliquely mentioned in her initial motion: namely, that the defendants failed to satisfy the "rule of unanimity" required under 28 U.S.C. 1446. See Mot. for Reconsideration at 34, Dkt. 10; Emergency Mot. for Remand at 7 ("[N]or has the Company given their consent in this matter."). The Court ordered responses, see Min. Order of Mar. 20, 2024, and Defendant Metro Investigation & Recovery Solutions, Inc. ("Metro") filed a response on April 2, 2024, noting that it "expressly consents to Honda's Notice of Removal" and "consented to Honda's Notice of Removal as of filing on March 5, 2024," Resp. to March 20, 2024 Min. Order at 1, Dkt. 16. Upon further consideration, the Court agrees with the plaintiff that the defendants have failed to comply with the rule of unanimity and will remand this action to the D.C. Superior Court.A notice of removal must be filed "within 30 days" of a defendant receiving "a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based." 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1). Defendant American Honda Finance Corporation ("Honda") satisfied this requirement because it was served with a copy of the complaint on February 13, 2024 and filed its notice of removal on March 5, 2024. See Notice of Removal 3, Dkt. 1; Notice of Removal ex. A, Dkt. 1-1. That is not the only requirement for removal, however. Under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(2)(A), "[w]hen a civil action is removed . . . all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." This "widely recognized 'rule of unanimity'" requires "all served defendants" to provide "a timely demonstration of consent . . . within thirty days of service of the complaint." Hurt v. District of Columbia, 869 F. Supp. 2d 84, 86 (D.D.C. 2012); see id. n.2 ("In interpreting the deadline for consent to removal in a multi-defendant case, judges in this district have applied the rule that each defendant has thirty days from being individually served to demonstrate consent." (citing Ballard v. District of Columbia, 813 F. Supp. 2d 34, 38 (D.D.C. 2011)). "A failure by defendants to obtain timely unanimous consent for removal is not a curable defect if the plaintiff objects to that removal within the thirty days granted under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c)." Id. at 86. Here, the plaintiff timely objected to removal "within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c); see Emergency Mot. to Remand at 1; Mot. for Reconsideration at 34.Metro failed to timely express consent to removal. Metro was served on either February 13 or February 16, 2024, but in any event, it did not file its consent to removal until April 2, 2024more than 30 days after it was served. See Resp. to March 20, 2024 Min. Order at 1. Metro has not "requested leave to extend the time to file" nor alleged "excusable neglect . . . for its delay in filing." Hurt, 869 F. Supp. 2d at 87. Metro's April 2, 2024 consent to removal is plainly untimely, and it points to no authority permitting retroactive consent outside the 30-day window. Indeed, the Court must "strictly interpret[]" the removal statutes "in favor of state court jurisdiction" and will not stretch those statutes to permit retroactive consent or to create a new exception to the rule of unanimity. Id.; see Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941) ("Not only does the language of the Act of 1887 evidence the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, but the policy of the successive acts of Congress regulating the jurisdiction of federal courts is one calling for the strict construction of such legislation."). Although the plaintiff did not plainly raise the lack-of-consent issue until Metro's 30-day window expired, Metro's failure to consent is not a curable defect. Relief under Rule 54(b) is thus warranted.The defendants' arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, the Court rejects Honda's argument that Metro "implicitly" consented to removal. Honda argues that within the 30-day window for removal, Metro "did not object to the removal and implicitly consented to the removal at that time" based on communications between the defendants. Resp. to March 20, 2024 Minute Order 9, Dkt. 18. Honda further suggests Metro consented "to the removal when . . . it filed its motion to dismiss" and "corporate disclosure statement." Id. "While there is some variety in the timing and formality required for defendants to express their unanimous consent to removal, each defendant's consent to removal must be unambiguous and independent." Williams v. Howard Univ., 984 F. Supp. 27, 29 (D.D.C. 1997). Metro's failure to object to removal is plainly insufficient to demonstrate consent, and "the mere filing of a pleading or motion in federal court is [also] insufficient to demonstrate an unambiguous consent to removal." Id. at 30 n.4. Second, Honda is incorrect that Metro properly consented under the "intermediate rule." Under this interpretation of the removal statutes, a notice of removal must be "filed within the first-served defendant's thirty-day window, but gives later-served defendants thirty days from the date they were served to join the notice of removal." Ballard, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 38. Here, however, Metro did not consent within thirty days from the date on which it was servedi.e., by March 14 or 17, 2024.Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's #10 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on April 5, 2024. (lcdlf2)
|
| Filing 19 REPLY re #16 Response to Order of the Court , filed by STACEY ARNOLD. (mg) Modified event on 4/5/2024 (mg). |
| Filing 18 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Set Deadlines, and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration filed by AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION. (Meyer, Sarah) |
| Filing 17 RESPONSE re #6 MOTION to Dismiss , or in the Alternative, More Definite Statement MOTION for More Definite Statement DEFENDANT METRO INVESTIGATION & RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC.S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT filed by METRO INVESTIGATION & RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC.. (McLin, Ian) |
| Filing 16 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Set Deadlines, Metro Investigation & Recovery Solutions, Inc.'s RESPONSE TO MARCH 20, 2024 MINUTE ORDER filed by METRO INVESTIGATION & RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC.. (McLin, Ian) |
| Filing 15 Memorandum in opposition to re #6 Motion to Dismiss filed by STACEY ARNOLD. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(mg) |
| Filing 14 REPLY to opposition to motion re #7 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim filed by AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION. (Meyer, Sarah) |
|
MINUTE ORDER denying the plaintiff's #12 Motion to Strike. On March 18, 2024, Metro Investigation & Recovery Solutions, Inc. filed its #8 LCvR 26.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement, and on March 19, 2024, American Honda Finance Corporation filed its #11 LCvR 26.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. The plaintiff moves to strike these filings as late filed. See Dkt. 12. Per LCvR 26.1, "[i]n all civil... cases where a corporation is a party . . . counsel of record for that party . . . shall file a certificate listing any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or any company which owns 10% or more of the stock of that party . . . which, to the knowledge of counsel, has any outstanding securities in the hands of the public. Such certificate shall be filed at the time the party's first pleading is filed," and "[t]he purpose of this certificate is to enable the judges of this Court to determine the need for recusal." The defendants did not file their statements at the time of their first pleadings before this Court. "Although the Court looks with disfavor on late-filed motions," the Court finds that the delay "caused no prejudice to plaintiff" (nor does she suggest to the contrary). Mitchell v. Yates, 402 F. Supp. 2d 222, 225 n.1 (D.D.C. 2005). Moreover, the Court needs the defendants' corporate-disclosure statements to review for any potential conflicts of interest that may warrant recusal. The Court thus construes the defendants' oppositions as motions to file out of time and will accept these filings as late because of excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). Further, the defendants are reminded that on or before April 2, 2024, they shall file a response addressing their positions on both consent to removal and when service was effective. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 23, 2024. (lcdlf2)
|
| Filing 13 Memorandum in opposition to re #12 Motion to Strike filed by AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Sarah) |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Strike #8 LCvR 26.1 Certificate of Disclosure - Corporate Affiliations/Financial Interests by STACEY ARNOLD. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(mg) |
|
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the plaintiff's #10 Motion for Reconsideration, it is ORDERED that on or before April 2, 2024, the defendants shall file a response, addressing their positions on both consent to removal and when service was effective. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 20, 2024. (lcdlf2)
|
| Filing 11 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION (Meyer, Sarah) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re 3/13/2024 MINUTE Order on Motion to Remand to State Court, by STACEY ARNOLD. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(mg) |
| Filing 9 Memorandum in opposition to re #7 Motion to Dismiss filed by STACEY ARNOLD. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(mg) |
| Filing 8 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by METRO INVESTIGATION & RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC. (McLin, Ian) |
|
MINUTE ORDER denying the plaintiff's #5 Emergency Motion for Remand. The plaintiff argues that removal from the D.C. Superior Court was improper and moves to remand. See Emergency Mot. for Remand at 12, Dkt. 5. "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction" over a case removed from state court, "the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). "Whenever a plaintiff seeks to remand a case that was removed to federal court back to state court, the party opposing the motion to remand bears the burden of establishing that subject-matter jurisdiction exists in federal court." Bradford v. George Wash. Univ., 249 F. Supp. 3d 325, 331 (D.D.C. 2017) (cleaned up). In the #1 Notice of Removal, the defendants have successfully shown that removal was proper because this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.First, the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). The plaintiff claims the defendants have "failed to support an argument that the 'amount in controversy' is in [excess] of 75,000 exclusive of interest and costs." Emergency Mot. for Remand at 3. But this is plainly contradicted by the plaintiff's #1 -1 Complaint, which requests $750,000 in compensatory damages and $2.1 million in punitive damages. See Compl. at 31, Dkt. 1-1; see also Kahal v. J. W. Wilson Assocs., Inc., 673 F.2d 547, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("A Court must consider claims for both actual and punitive damages in determining jurisdictional amount.").Second, the action "is between . . . citizens of different states." 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). The plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia. See Compl. 2. As to the defendants, a "corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1); see Student Loan Servicing All. v. District of Columbia, 351 F. Supp. 3d 26, 42 (D.D.C. 2018) ("[I]n determining whether a plaintiff has met the burden of establishing jurisdiction, the Court may consider materials beyond the pleadings where appropriate."). American Honda Finance Corporation is incorporated in California and has its principal place of business in California, see Notice of Removal ex. B at 2, Dkt. 1-2, and Metro Investigation and Recovery Solutions, Inc. is incorporated in Maryland and has its principal place of business in Maryland, see Notice of Removal ex. C at 2, Dkt. 1-3. There is thus complete diversity of citizenship. Although the plaintiff directs the Court to authority about personal jurisdiction, see Emergency Mot. for Remand at 29, those authorities do not bear on the issue of diversity jurisdiction. The Court thus concludes that diversity jurisdiction has been established, and it denies the plaintiff's #5 Emergency Motion for Remand. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 13, 2024. (lcdlf2)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the plaintiff is advised that failure to respond on or before March 26, 2024 to the defendants' pending #6 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement and #7 Motion to Dismiss, may result in the Court (1) treating the motions as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendants' motions based on the defendants' arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file a response to the defendants' #6 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement and #7 Motion to Dismiss, or seek an extension of time to do so, on or before March 26, 2024, or the Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Minute Order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 13, 2024. (lcdlf2)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim by AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Memorandum in Support)(Meyer, Sarah) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss , or in the Alternative, More Definite Statement by METRO INVESTIGATION & RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(McLin, Ian). Added MOTION for More Definite Statement on 3/13/2024 (mg). |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Remand to State Court by STACEY ARNOLD. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(mg) |
| Filing 4 Receipt on 3/12/2024 of ORIGINAL FILE, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet from Superior Court. Superior Court Number 2024-CAB-000926. (mg) |
|
Filing 3
STANDARD ORDER for Civil Cases. See text for details. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 6, 2024. (lcdlf2)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE to Counsel/Party re #1 Notice of Removal, (Attachments: #1 Notice and Consent)(znmw) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. (znmw) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court for the District of Columbia, case number 2024-CAB-000926 Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ADCDC-10734658 filed by AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Court Documents, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Meyer, Sarah) (Attachment 5 replaced on 3/6/2024) (znmw). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
