Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Diversey, Inc. filing a lawsuit against former employees who allegedly copied confidential information before joining a competing company, Swisher Hygiene, Inc. The lawsuit was initially filed in state court and removed to federal court based on a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Diversey contested the removal due to Swisher's failure to include the consent of other defendants, which is typically required in multi-defendant cases. However, the court determined that Swisher was not obligated to secure consent from the unserved defendants at the time of removal, and the defect in the notice was remedied by a timely amendment. The court further noted that while forum-selection clauses were cited by Diversey to argue for remand, their enforceability concerning removal consent was doubted but not decided. The court concluded that the consent of later-served defendants was unnecessary, as established by the Third Circuit, and denied Diversey's motion to remand. The case remains in federal court, with the understanding that unserved defendants retain the right to request remand upon being served.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Notice of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Swisher amended the notice within the allowable timeframe to address the absence of other defendants' consent, thereby remedying the defect.
Reasoning: Despite this, Swisher needed to provide an explanation in its notice for their absence, which it initially failed to do but later corrected with an amended notice.
Consent of Later-Served Defendantssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the consent of later-served defendants is not necessary for valid removal if they do not move to remand.
Reasoning: The Third Circuit has ruled that the consent of later-served defendants is not required for a valid removal, as established in Lewis v. Rego Co.
Forum-Selection Clauses and Removal Consentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court expressed skepticism about the enforceability of forum-selection clauses regarding removal consent but did not make a definitive ruling on this issue.
Reasoning: The court, however, indicated skepticism about the enforceability of such clauses regarding removal consent but did not need to decide this issue as Swisher was not required to obtain consent from the unserved defendants.
Removal to Federal Court under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was removed to federal court based on a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, justifying federal jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The case was originally filed in state court on June 30, 2011, and removed to federal court by Swisher on July 5, 2011, based on a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Requirement of Consent for Removal in Multi-Defendant Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Swisher was not required to obtain consent from unserved defendants at the time of removal, thus the removal was valid.
Reasoning: However, since Maxwell, Breeden, and Bonnett had not been served at the time of removal, Swisher was not obligated to secure their consent.
Right of Later-Served Defendants to Seek Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Unserved defendants can later move to remand after being served, which makes the initial requirement for their consent unnecessary.
Reasoning: A defendant can remove a case without the consent of unserved defendants, but those defendants can later move to remand after being served.