0
Okay so they are not a sponsor, my bad.
The underlying issue does pertain to general motorcycling issues and that is the topic of this forum.
Basically CALM went forum shopping to take advantage of a more stringent Federal Statute but didn't have the consent to remove the case to Federal Court from the Town, even though they (mis)represented that they did.....
That's a no-no so they took a smack down.
http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/13978..._noise_lawsuit.
Good one guys see you next week for those Q2s!NH CALM filed its notice of removal three days before the date by which it was obligated to demonstrate joinder or consent by the Town. But, notwithstanding its acknowledgment of the "Unanimity Rule" in its notice of removal, see doc. no. 1 ¶ 2, NH CALM said nothing about how it had satisfied, had attempted to satisfy, or intended to try to satisfy that rule. The notice indicated that NH CALM was serving it on the Town, but NH CALM did not indicate that it intended to seek the Town's consent to removal. Moreover, when it objected to Seacoast's motion to remand, NH CALM did not describe any steps it had taken to secure the Town's consent; it acknowledged that the Town had not consented to removal; and it demonstrated a significant misapprehension of the burden of proof, pointing out the legally [*11] meaningless fact that Seacoast had not affirmatively documented the Town's lack of consent.
Given that the unanimity requirement, the burden of proving compliance with it, and the deadline for doing so are all well established, NH CALM's legal stance, steadfastly maintained after the deadline for demonstrating joinder or consent had passed, was patently unreasonable. Because Seacoast was forced to litigate to preserve its choice of forum against a position that was not just incorrect, but had no objective basis, either legally or factually, Seacoast is entitled to the costs and attorney's fees it reasonably incurred in securing a remand.