In Avenatti v. Fox News Network LLC, No. 21-2702 (3d Cir. July 21, 2022), the Third Circuit affirms a decision of the district court to drop a defendant added to a complaint, just days after its removal, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. When non-diverse defendants are named in the state-court complaint prior to removalContinue reading “District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 in Dropping Non-Diverse Party Added to Complaint Days After Removal, Holds Third Circuit”
Tag Archives: Removal
On Remand from U.S. Supreme Court, First Circuit Upholds Original Decision to Remand Massive Fossil-Fuel Case to Rhode Island State Court
The First Circuit returns to State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., LLC, No. 19-1818 (1st Cir. May 24, 2020) – previously discussed on this blog on November 20, 2020 (No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Remand Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) Except on Federal-Officer Ground, Holds First Circuit) – and addresses the unansweredContinue reading “On Remand from U.S. Supreme Court, First Circuit Upholds Original Decision to Remand Massive Fossil-Fuel Case to Rhode Island State Court”
District Court May Not Look Behind a State Court’s Application of Its Own Procedural Law on Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Holds Fifth Circuit
In Turner v. GoAuto Insurance, No. 22-30103 (5th Cir. May 2, 2022), the Fifth Circuit holds that a district court properly remanded a class action to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 when it accepted an amended complaint, filed two days before the removal petition, as the operative complaint that limited the class solelyContinue reading “District Court May Not Look Behind a State Court’s Application of Its Own Procedural Law on Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Holds Fifth Circuit”
Because Defendants Never Received Written Notice from Plaintiff That Disclosed Basis for Federal Jurisdiction, Third Circuit Holds That 30-Day Clock for Removal Never Triggered Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
In McLaren v. The UPS Store Inc., No. 22-1379 (3d Cir. Apr. 25, 2022), the Third Circuit vacates an order remanding a case to state court on timing grounds, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that the 30-day clock for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 started runningContinue reading “Because Defendants Never Received Written Notice from Plaintiff That Disclosed Basis for Federal Jurisdiction, Third Circuit Holds That 30-Day Clock for Removal Never Triggered Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441”
Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) Grants No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Remand to State Court Under CAFA If the District Court Grants It Sua Sponte
In Ruhlen, et al. v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc., No. 21-90022 (11th Cir. Mar 10, 2022), owing to a quirk in the statutory language, a 2-1 panel holds that 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) – which ordinarily allows a U.S. Court of Appeals to hear an appeal “from an order of a district court granting orContinue reading “Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) Grants No Appellate Jurisdiction Over Remand to State Court Under CAFA If the District Court Grants It Sua Sponte”
Injunctive Order in State-Court Action Removed to Federal Court Not Immediately Appealable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), Holds Sixth Circuit
In Schuler v. Adams, No. 21-1613 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2022), the Sixth Circuit faces the novel question of whether a preliminary injunction entered in a state-court action before it is removed to federal court can be immediately appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The panel dismisses the appeal, holding that it has “jurisdiction onlyContinue reading “Injunctive Order in State-Court Action Removed to Federal Court Not Immediately Appealable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), Holds Sixth Circuit”
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”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 