In Mayo v. Board Of Education, 713 F.3d 735 (4th Cir. 2013) (Nos. 11-1816, 11-2037), plaintiffs filed suit against a school board, its chair, and a teacher’s union in Maryland state court. The school board and its chair filed a notice of removal to federal court, which included a statement that the union also agreed to the removal. The union did not sign the notice of removal or file its own notice or other paper giving its consent to the removal in writing. Relying on Supreme Court precedent requiring that all defendants must consent to removal, plaintiffs moved for remand, arguing that the union had not formally consented to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The district court denied the remand motion, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court stated that while the need for unanimous consent for removal was clear, neither § 1446 nor the Supreme Court’s decisions have specified how that consent must be given. The court further noted that circuits were split on the issue: the Seventh Circuit requires that all defendants must sign or otherwise join in writing in a petition for removal, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that a notice filed by one defendant, but which represents that all defendants consent to removal, is sufficient. The Fourth Circuit adopted the Sixth and Ninth Circuits’ approach, holding that there was no statutory or policy reason why removal in a multi-defendant case cannot be accomplished by filing one paper, signed by at least one attorney, representing that all defendants consent to removal. The court reasoned that the threat of Rule 11 sanctions would deter misrepresentations as to other defendants, and any misstatements were likely to be brought to the court’s attention and remedied quickly.