Deadline for Removal Not Triggered by Initial Pleading in Pennsylvania

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident in which Ms. Baucom “was violently struck from behind” while driving her motor vehicle by Ms. Torres Vidal. Ms. Baucom claimed to have “suffered severe aches, pains, mental anxiety, anguish, and severe shock through their nerves and nervous system.” On February 5, 2024, Ms. Baucom and her husband, Joseph Baucom, citizens of Pennsylvania, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against Ms. Torres Vidal, a citizen of New Jersey, seeking damages for injuries and losses sustained by Ms. Baucom and Mr. Baucom’s loss of consortium. 

Consistent with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021(c), the complaint demanded damages in excess of $50,000. On April 22, 2024, the Baucoms filed their Case Management Conference Memorandum (CMCM) with the Court of Common Pleas in which they asserted a demand for $350,000. Eight days later, on April 30, 2024, Ms. Torres Vidal filed a notice of removal to federal court on the basis that the Baucoms’ April 22 CMCM was the first time she knew the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. In response, the Baucoms filed a motion to remand, arguing that removal was improper as being untimely. 

Generally, the defendant must file notice of removal “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant ... of 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). However, “if the initial pleading [does] not give defendant notice of removability,” the defendant shall file notice of removal within 30 days “after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 

Here, the Baucoms’ complaint did not put Ms. Torres Vidal on notice that this case was removable as the complaint did not allege any particular amount of damages. The “removal clock” was not triggered until the Baucoms filed their CMCM, which included a settlement demand of $350,000. Thus, the removal was timely. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}