In Wilson v. Hearos, LLC, No. 23-12550 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit holds that a plaintiff who failed to challenge a non-party’s removal of an action to federal court under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), within the 30 days provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) waived his objection. The Fifth Circuit had previously held that a purported non-party removal is a non-waivable jurisdictional defect.
Only a defendant to a lawsuit may remove a case from state to federal court under § 1441(a). But in this case, a products liability action filed by Wilson against a manufacturer of hearing protection named Hearos in Georgia state court, the defendant’s parent company named PIP removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. PIP and Hearos then moved to dismiss on a variety of procedural and merits grounds.
“Noting the irregularity of a non-party removing the case to federal court, the district court identified competing, nonbinding case law on whether to treat such an improper removal as an unwaivable, jurisdictional defect or a waivable, procedural one. Ultimately, the district court concluded that such a defect was waivable. As there was no dispute over original subject matter jurisdiction and neither party raised any objections within the 30-days limit under the remand statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the district court maintained jurisdiction over the case.” On the merits, the district court dismissed the action as untimely.
The Eleventh Circuit affirms. It was unchallenged that the non-parties have no standing to remove a case...
