Worth v. Picard

1 Citing case

  1. Gallagher v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm.

    22-cv-10216 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    For that reason, the courts that have addressed the issue have uniformly held that where counsel for a defendant has affixed a signature to the statement in writing that such defendant has consented to removal, the signature is in and of itself sufficient regardless whether the representation is freestanding or contained on the notice of removal. See Neuman v. Machne of Richmond, 2022 WL 1591056, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2022) (“where, as here, counsel represents co-defendants and states that both defendants consent to removal, the rule of unanimity is satisfied”) (citing cases); Worth v. Picard, 2021 WL 5447121, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2021) (holding that it was “evident” that all parties joined in a notice “as reflected by the relevant attorneys' signatures on the notice itself”); Dunlop v. City of New York, 2006 WL 2853972, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2006)