In The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-1568 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025), a 2-1 panel holds that Exxon could be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for pressing the same grounds for removal that eight U.S. Courts of Appeals had rejected after the original removal. The dissent would hold thatContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Affirms Attorney Fee Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Under “Unusual Circumstances,” Where Defendant Continued to Resist a Motion to Remand on Grounds That Federal Courts Widely Rejected After the Original Removal”
Tag Archives: Removal
Fourth Circuit Splits with Seventh Circuit in Holding That a Court May Not Award Appellate Attorney’s Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
In Black v. Mantei & Associates, Ltd.. No. 24-1439 (4th Cir. July 30, 2025), the Fourth Circuit holds that the fee-shifting provision applicable to removal petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), does not authorize – let alone mandate – attorney’s fees for defending an award of attorney’s fees on appeal, rejecting decisions in the Seventh CircuitContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Splits with Seventh Circuit in Holding That a Court May Not Award Appellate Attorney’s Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)”
En Banc Fifth Circuit Holds That Waiver-Based Remand Orders Are Appealable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Overruling the Circuit’s Long-Standing Contrary Authority
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, No. 23-20337 (5th Cir. May 16, 2025) (en banc), the Fifth Circuit unanimously overrules a 45-year-old circuit precedent and holds that an order remanding a removed case based on the defendant’s alleged waiver by participation in a state-court case falls within the court’s appellate jurisdictionContinue reading “En Banc Fifth Circuit Holds That Waiver-Based Remand Orders Are Appealable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Overruling the Circuit’s Long-Standing Contrary Authority”
Eleventh Circuit Splits with Fifth in Holding That Non-Party Removal of a Case to Federal Court Is a Waivable Procedural Defect Subject to the 30-Day Limit Under § 1447(c)
In Wilson v. Hearos, LLC, No. 23-12550 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit holds that a plaintiff who failed to challenge a non-party’s removal of an action to federal court under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), within the 30 days provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) waived his objection. TheContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Splits with Fifth in Holding That Non-Party Removal of a Case to Federal Court Is a Waivable Procedural Defect Subject to the 30-Day Limit Under § 1447(c)”
Fourth Circuit Panel Holds 2-1 That Defendants Won the Race to the Courthouse Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Filing a Notice of Appeal That Stayed the District Court’s Authority to Remand a Removed Case Back to State Court
In City of Martinsville, Va. v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 24-1912 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 2025), a 2-1 panel holds that because the defendant filed its appeal before the district court physically mailed a remand order to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, the order had no legal effect. The panel judges differ overContinue reading “Fourth Circuit Panel Holds 2-1 That Defendants Won the Race to the Courthouse Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Filing a Notice of Appeal That Stayed the District Court’s Authority to Remand a Removed Case Back to State Court”
City’s Unexplained Failure to Name State as a Party Prevents Remand of Removed Case to State Court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Holds Fifth Circuit
In New Orleans City v. Aspect Energy, LLC, No. 24-30199 (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2025), the Fifth Circuit holds that the unexplained failure of the City of New Orleans to add the State of Louisiana as a party to its complaint meant that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction over the removed case. “Appellant, NewContinue reading “City’s Unexplained Failure to Name State as a Party Prevents Remand of Removed Case to State Court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Holds Fifth Circuit”
Time to Remove Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) Triggered by Date Acknowledged by the Parties on the Waiver of Service Rather Than When the Waiver Is Signed or Filed in Court, Holds Split Eighth Circuit Panel
In Monsanto Co. v. General Electric Co., No. 24-1230 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 2025), an Eighth Circuit panel splits over when the 30 days begin to run for a removal petition to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) when the parties use a waiver-of-service procedure. The panel majority holds that the time runs fromContinue reading “Time to Remove Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) Triggered by Date Acknowledged by the Parties on the Waiver of Service Rather Than When the Waiver Is Signed or Filed in Court, Holds Split Eighth Circuit Panel”
Ninth Circuit Nixes “Super Snap Removals” to Circumvent the Forum Defendant Rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)
In Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 23-55403 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024), the Ninth Circuit rejects a California corporation’s attempt to avoid the forum-defendant rule by filing removal petitions in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) even before the cases were docketed in California state court. The forum-defendant rule is an exception to removalContinue reading “Ninth Circuit Nixes “Super Snap Removals” to Circumvent the Forum Defendant Rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)”
No Leniency for a Pro Se Litigant Who Is Also a Licensed Attorney, Holds Ninth Circuit
In Hoffman v. Lindgren, No. 22-35471 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023), the Ninth Circuit resolves an intracircuit split and holds that no leniency is due to pro se litigants who are also licensed, practicing attorneys. “Huffman, a practicing attorney, sued a municipal court judge, a prosecutor, and the City of St. Helens, Oregon in ColumbiaContinue reading “No Leniency for a Pro Se Litigant Who Is Also a Licensed Attorney, Holds Ninth Circuit”
Eighth Circuit Holds That There Is No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Removed Case Once Plaintiff Amends Their Complaint to Strip Out All Federal-Law Allegations, Noting Split with Second and Fifth Circuits
In Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-1796 (8th Cir. July 31, 2023), on its second trip to the Eighth Circuit, the court holds that a class-action plaintiff successfully outfoxed the defendants by promptly amending their removed complaint to strike out all federal-law allegations, thus depriving the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction. This isContinue reading “Eighth Circuit Holds That There Is No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Removed Case Once Plaintiff Amends Their Complaint to Strip Out All Federal-Law Allegations, Noting Split with Second and Fifth Circuits”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 