Segal McCambridge Legal Blog

On September 13-14, 2012, the Diversity Law Institute held its annual Diversity Summit in Chicago. The event brought together legal minds from across the country to create a compelling discourse on diversity issues. Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, co-host, kicked off the Summit on Thursday evening with a cocktail reception in the firm’s Willis Tower offices. Friday’s colloquium took place at the Chicago Gleacher Center. Speakers and participants discussed ideas and issues surrounding diversity in the practice of law. Following the round table discussions, the DLI presented awards to select law firms in recognition of their support of diversity and the Diversity Law Institute. The group then headed to Boka, a Michelin-starred restaurant in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, for a closing meal.

The Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) and Faegre Baker Daniels also co-hosted the 2012 Diversity Summit. Visit the LCA’s Litigation Commentary and Review to read a full recap of the event, view the Summit’s agenda, and see pictures.

For a defendant,  ‘removing ‘ a case that is, taking a case filed in a state court and moving it over to a federal court may be the most critical step taken in the case.   Often times it makes the difference between winning and losing.   This is because in a federal forum, legal standards are generally more rigorous and defendants are more likely to get a receptive hearing.

The federal courts strictly enforce the rules governing removal. But understanding and complying with those rules can be tricky.

For example, the rules say that a defendant must remove the case  within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading.  An out-of-state defendant is often  served through a statutory agent, such as a Secretary of State.   Does service of a summons and compliant on a statutory agent qualify as  receipt by the defendant.   Recently, in Ackerman v. PNC Bank, Nat. Assn. (Aug. 13, 2012), a Federal District Court, answered this question.   It found, applying the now settled rule,  that service on a statutory agent does not start the removal clock.   Rather, it begins when the defendant itself actually receives the summons and complaint.

Corporate defendants and their attorneys know well the plethora of potential benefits associated with litigating a case in a federal rather than state court.   Having an action heard by the federal judiciary may dramatically increase the likelihood of a positive outcome and almost certainly reduces a defendants financial exposure should it lose.   This being the case, most plaintiffs attorneys will do almost anything to avoid litigating and trying their cases in federal court.     So knowing and complying with the removal rules is critical, and a defendant that fails to do so may unintentionally forego its right to a more favorable forum, thus diminishing if not destroying its chances of winning the case.

Paul E. Wojcicki

Freddy Fonseca

In a recent ruling in New Jersey by The Hon. Carol Higbee, a Segal McCambridge client was dismissed from over 900 cases.  In her May 4, 2012 decision, Judge Higbee granted the motion to dismiss filed by the firm, agreeing that a generic drug manufacturer whose product is unilaterally designated by FDA as the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) does not have regulatory responsibilities beyond those of any other generic drug manufacturer.  The client in these matters is represented by Bob O'Malley, a partner in the Chicago office.

An article about this decision was published in Bloomberg BNA’s Product Safety & Liability Reporter on May 14, 2012. To read the article, click here.