Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
MAR 19 2009
~ ~ EN, lark
Case No. :
752
Removal -1
As Emory initiated the arbitration and has now filed the motion seeking to
confirm the arbitration award in Superior Court, Emory University and Emory
Healthcare, Inc . are the plaintiffs in this piece of the litigation between the parties .
Emory, over the objections of Dr . Murtagh, moved to compel and has pursued
arbitration of issues that Dr . Murtagh believes and has asserted are not within the
scope of the parties' arbitration and settlement agreement and for which Emory has
waived its right to arbitrate . Thus, the "mainspring" of the proceedings has been
driven by Emory, making Dr . Murtagh a proper defendant for removal purposes .
Mason City & Ft. D.R. Co. v. Boynton, 204 U.S . 570, 580 (1907) ; International Tin
Council v . Amalgamet Inc., 645 F. Supp . 879 (S .D.N.Y. 1986).
refusing to apply applicable federal law and made a prejudicial procedural error
regarding federal law (i .e . demonstrated what has, in court decisions prior to 2008,
Removal - 2
been termed "manifest disregard" for federal law) in his decision . The arbitration
record reflects that the arbitrator recognized the applicable federal law regarding
federal Rule 11 and Rule 37, and then ignored it . Carter v. Health Net, 374 F .3d
$30, 836-38 (9' Cir. 2004) . For example, the arbitrator refused to award fees and
costs to Dr . Murtagh, or even analyze Dr . Murtagh's entitlement to such fees as a
prevailing opponent of a Rule 11 motion, despite the Arbitrator's
acknowledgement of the law and requirements under Fed .R.Civ .P., Rule 11 that
required him to do so . Further, the Arbitrator also blatantly misapplied the federal
law interpreting Fed .R.Civ .P., Rule 37 .
(3)
Johnson v . Columbia Props. Anchorage, L.P., 437 F .3d 894, 899-900 (9th Cir .
2006) . The Emory Plaintiffs are citizens of Georgia . Defendant Murtagh is a
citizen of Arkansas . As a result of his job loss and the blacklisting and retaliation
alleged by Dr. Murtagh to have been engaged in by Emory, Dr . Murtagh has had to
relocate away from Georgia and is employed in temporary jobs that require
Removal - 3
1 In the near future, one of Mur tagh's temp orary assign ments may bring hi m to Georgia. However,
absent an offer o f a permanent position he will not become a citizen of Georgia . Presently, Dr . Murtagh
intends to ret urn to Arkansas after he co mp letes his next temporary assignments .
Rem ova l - 4
Finally, Defendant Murtagh will promptly file a copy of this notice of removal
with the clerk of the state court where Emory's Motion to Confirm Arbitration
Award has been pending.
D. Conclusion
For these reasons, Defendant asks the court to remove the suit to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia .
kcou
. Harrison, Esq .
{MickG
The Caldwell Center
323 S. Walnut Street
Bloomington, IN 47401
(812) 323-7274
mickharr isones earthl ink.net
R emoval- 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing NOT ICE OF
REMOVAL upon the Plaintiff herein, by mailing a copy thereof to the following
counsel of record, by first class mail, on this I 9t'' day of March, 2009 :
Todd D . Wozniak
Theodore B . Eichelberger
Lindsey Camp Edelmann
Alton & Bird LLP
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
One Atlantic Center
3920 Northside Parkway, Suite 400 1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30327
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
fih$L
d
L. Goodhart, Esq.
Removal - 6