Opinion
2:08cv810 Electronic Filing.
July 28, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2008, upon due consideration of plaintiff's motion to remand and defendants' response in opposition thereto, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County forthwith.
As Judge Squatrito recently observed in Edelman v. Page, 535 F. Supp.2d 290, Judge Pollock's 1978 opinion in Sicinski v. Reliance Funding Corp., 461 F. Supp. 1143 (S.D. N.Y. 1978) "has been called into question by a number of courts" and its approach "is contrary to the overwhelming weight of authority requiring that each defendant independently notify the court of its consent" to removal within the thirty day period. Edelman, 535 F.3d 294 (quoting Sansone v. Morton Mach. Works, Inc., 188 F. Supp.2d 182, 185 (D.R.I. 2002)). Furthermore, defendants' reliance on the wherefore clause is misplaced because that clause is insufficient to establish that each defendant had specifically joined in and consented to the removal. Compare Edelman, 295 n. 2 (noting that the majority approach holds that each defendant must inform the court of its consent to removal prior to the expiration of the thirty day period). There being no sound basis for exempting defendants from the rule of unanimity, the entry of an order of remand is appropriate.