Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.
Headline: Removal deadline limited: Court rules 30-day removal clock starts with formal service of summons and complaint, not from informal faxed copies, protecting defendants from premature deadlines.
Holding: The Court held that the 30-day removal period begins with formal service of summons and complaint, or receipt after service, but not from mere receipt of an informal fax.
- Prevents plaintiffs from starting the removal clock by sending informal faxed complaint copies.
- Gives defendants 30 days after formal service to decide about removing to federal court.
- Protects foreign defendants from instant fax-triggered deadlines before formal international service.
Summary
Background
A Canadian pipe company filed a lawsuit in Alabama state court against an Illinois corporation. The plaintiff filed its complaint on January 26, 1996, then faxed a “courtesy copy” to one of the defendant’s vice presidents three days later. The plaintiff officially served the defendant by certified mail on February 12, 1996. The defendant removed the case to federal court on March 13, 1996. The state-side plaintiff argued removal was late because the 30-day removal period began when the defendant received the faxed copy.
Reasoning
The Court addressed when the 30-day window to move a case from state to federal court begins. Relying on long-standing practice that a person becomes an official party only when formally served, and on Congress’s 1949 wording, the Court held that the removal clock starts on formal service of a summons together with the complaint, or when the complaint is received after service, but not simply when a defendant gets an informal courtesy fax. The majority feared that letting faxes start the clock would unfairly trap defendants, especially those abroad, and would contradict service’s traditional role.
Real world impact
After this decision, defendants generally have 30 days after formal service to decide on removal; plaintiffs cannot trigger that deadline merely by sending informal copies. The Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s contrary ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this rule.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented, arguing the statute’s plain language meant the clock began when the defendant received the faxed complaint and would have affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?