Split Fifth Circuit Panel Rejects Eleventh Circuit’s “Fraudulent Misjoinder” Doctrine to Rescue Removed Case and Remands to State Court

In Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co., No. 20-30196 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021), the panel split three ways in addressing whether there was full diversity in a removed action, with the majority holding that that no misjoinder doctrine could rescue the case from remand. The case had proceeded for over a decade in state andContinue reading “Split Fifth Circuit Panel Rejects Eleventh Circuit’s “Fraudulent Misjoinder” Doctrine to Rescue Removed Case and Remands to State Court”

Deposition Testimony Is Not “A Pleading, Motion, Order or Other Paper” for Removal Purposes Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) Holds Ninth Circuit, Splitting with the Tenth Circuit

In Dietrich v. The Boeing Co., No. 19-56409 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021), the Ninth Circuit aligns itself with other circuits in holding that the removal section 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) is triggered by the filing or service of “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper” that discloses an “unequivocally clear and certain” basisContinue reading “Deposition Testimony Is Not “A Pleading, Motion, Order or Other Paper” for Removal Purposes Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) Holds Ninth Circuit, Splitting with the Tenth Circuit”

Properly Served Defendant Cannot Cure Its Failure to Timely Consent to a Removal Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) by Joining the Opposition to a Motion to Remand, Holds Second Circuit

In Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 20-742 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2021), the Second Circuit holds the defendants to the strict requirements 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), holding that a defendant that erroneously believed it was not properly served could not retroactively consent to a removal petition after the statutory 30 days by joining the otherContinue reading “Properly Served Defendant Cannot Cure Its Failure to Timely Consent to a Removal Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) by Joining the Opposition to a Motion to Remand, Holds Second Circuit”

“Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds

In Madison v. ADT LLC, No. 21-90028 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021), the panel holds that the district court should have disregarded the nominal in-state defendant when evaluating the “home state” exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). It holds that primary defendants include those at whom a lawsuit isContinue reading ““Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds”

Second Circuit Weighs Competing Standards for Federal Officer Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, Finding Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand

In Razmzan v. United States, No. 19-227 (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2021), the panel holds that removal of an action from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, for federal officer or agent removal, was supported by the factual allegations and that the district court’s remand order could be reviewed on appeal under 28 U.S.C.Continue reading “Second Circuit Weighs Competing Standards for Federal Officer Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, Finding Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand”

Plaintiff Gets Her Own Lawsuit Dismissed on Spokeo Grounds in Seventh Circuit

In Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 20-3249 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2021), a plaintiff fighting removal of her Illinois class action from state court persuades the Seventh Circuit that the federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim. “Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, familiarly known as BIPA, provides robust protections for the biometric informationContinue reading “Plaintiff Gets Her Own Lawsuit Dismissed on Spokeo Grounds in Seventh Circuit”

CAFA Removal Petition Need Only Plausibly Allege – Not Prove – An Amount in Controversy, Holds Ninth Circuit

In Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., No. 20-55709 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020), the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court erred in holding that a defendant seeking to remove a matter from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C § 1332(d), had to factually prove that amount in controversy wasContinue reading “CAFA Removal Petition Need Only Plausibly Allege – Not Prove – An Amount in Controversy, Holds Ninth Circuit”

Removal to the Wrong Federal District Court Is A Procedural, Not Jurisdictional, Defect According to the Fifth Circuit

In Hinkley v. Envoy Air, Inc., No. 19-10848 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2020), the panel is presented with a convoluted problem of removal from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) that was filed in the wrong federal district. The panel holds that such a defect is only procedural rather than jurisdictional and was thusContinue reading “Removal to the Wrong Federal District Court Is A Procedural, Not Jurisdictional, Defect According to the Fifth Circuit”