Brady v. Lovelace Health Plan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the unanimity requirement is not required if the defendant has not yet been served with process
• characterizing removing-defendant’s “subsequent attempt to cure” its failure to obtain consent of co-defendants as “irrelevant” because the attempt “occurred outside the thirty-day statutory period”
• remanding case where the notice of removal was “silent as to whether [a co-defendant] consented to removal” and gave no explanation for the co-defendant’s the absence
• noting the unanimity requirement is not imposed on “a nominal or formal party”
• “When there are multiple defendants, generally all must consent to join in the notice of removal in order for it to be effective.”
• “When there are multiple defendants, generally all must consent to join in the notice of removal in order for it to be effective.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).