## Facts

- Ettlin participated in protest events near Los Angeles City Hall connected to the national “Occupy” movement.
- Based on police and governmental actions during the protests, Ettlin sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- Ettlin named multiple defendants, including the California Attorney General (Kamala D. Harris), various state-court judges, and members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
- The complaint asserted federal claims, including civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and federal racketeering (RICO) claims, along with related state-law causes of action.
- The Los Angeles County Supervisors removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on federal-question grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
- The other defendants did not join in, or file written consent to, the removal.
- Ettlin filed a timely motion to remand, arguing the removal violated the “rule of unanimity” in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) because all properly joined and served defendants had not consented.

## Issues

1. Whether removal of a state-court action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) is procedurally improper when all properly joined and served defendants do not join in or consent to removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).
2. Whether a timely motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires remand when the removing defendants fail to satisfy the unanimity requirement.

## Decision

- The court granted Ettlin’s motion to remand.
- The court held that removal was procedurally defective because the County Supervisors removed under § 1441(a) without obtaining the consent of all properly joined and served defendants as required by § 1446(b)(2)(A).
- The court remanded the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

## Legal Principles

- When a civil action is removed solely under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).
- The failure to obtain unanimous consent from all properly joined and served defendants is a defect in the removal procedure, and the case must be remanded if the plaintiff raises the defect by a timely motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- Removal statutes are construed against removal; the removing defendants bear the burden of showing that removal was proper.
- Absent a supported basis to excuse consent (for example, that a defendant was not properly joined and served, was nominal, or some other recognized exception applies), a removing defendant cannot proceed unilaterally in a multi-defendant case removed under § 1441(a).

## Conclusion

Because the County Supervisors removed the action under § 1441(a) without the consent of the other properly joined and served defendants, the removal violated § 1446(b)(2)(A)’s unanimity requirement; once Ettlin timely raised that procedural defect, remand to state court was required under § 1447(c).


Ettlin v. Harris, 2013 WL 6178986 (2013)