Railey v. Sunset Food Mart, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant’s removal of plaintiff’s class action claim under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act was untimely and remanding matter back to state court, where defendant removed action two years after case was filed in state court under circumstances where: (1) defendant argued that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by Labor Management Relations Act due to her union membership; and (2) it removed instant case shortly after plaintiff confirmed her union membership in response to one of defendant’s interrogatories. Applicable 30-day window for exercising removal under 28 USC section 1446(b)(1) applies once pleading or other litigation document provides clear notice that predicates for removal are present, and instant 30-day window started when case was filed in state court or shortly thereafter, since defendant, as plaintiff’s employer, was aware of plaintiff’s union membership at that time. Also, Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that removal was proper under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), since: (1) CAFA contains exception to CAFA jurisdiction for “home-state controversies,” where two-thirds or more of members of plaintiff’s proposed class and primary defendant are citizens of State in which action is filed; and (2) plaintiff’s class action was limited to citizens of Illinois who were employed by defendant.