Hawkins v. Cottrell, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• opining that “the reason behind the addition of the joined and served language is not clear from the legislative history”
• interpreting the “properly joined and served” provision in light of the definition of “served” under Georgia law and holding that Section 1441(b)’s text is “not ambiguous” and requires service before a defendant can remove the case
• “[N]o persuasive authority exists in the Eleventh Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals.”
• “If removal can be effected prior to service, it makes no sense for the removal deadline to begin to run after service of process.”
• “The 1948 changes to the removal statute were . . . not intended to allow a forum 12 defendant who had not been served to remove an action.”
• providing an in-depth analysis of Congress's intent on the issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).