9 Effect of Removal

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 serif;}{
\f4 sans-serif;}{
\f5 georgia;}{
\f6 Courier New;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj
{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid1118218196\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\level
space0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\list
id-1814733780}
{\list\listtemplateid-1183575817\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\leve
lspace0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\lis
tid1833384569}
id-1336551417}
id71248412}
id-1547732617}
{\list\listtemplateid629335145\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levels
pace0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listi
d-533761177}
tid-329235867}
d1645441349}
id-1750911879}
tid-723458307}
id160670944}
tid-1658125422}
d2052819024}
tid-228083860}
id378272585}
d-612220873}
{\list\listtemplateid-780526484\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\level
id372214428}
id1571819274}
id-526778320}
tid-466916148}
id-673073149}
id600408275}
id1529528687}
id1150787021}
id581718190}
id939915491}
id1071465632}
tid-2115752165}
tid-1078147893}
id-1344914179}
d1761098658}
tid2083441785}
tid335556873}
id-2138702585}
}
{\*\listoverridetable
{\*\listoverride{\listid-1814733780\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
{\*\listoverride{\listid1833384569\listoverridecount0\ls2}}
}
\paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr1080 \headery72
0 \footery720 \itap0 \cols1
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \b
rdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \b
rdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
9. Effect Of Removal, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 2D-9
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intb
l
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qr \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \
clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \
clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \i0
}
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150 89504e470
d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445fffffff
ffdfbfffcf9fdfdfdfafafafffffefffcf8f6f6f6f3f3f3fffdfae2e2e2fff5e8fffaf3fff7ecffa
631bbbbbb7f7f7f7676766b6b6bffca849e9e9ef8f8f8ffbf6afffefdff9712fcfcfca4a4a496969
6ff9202ffb452fff5e6ff970dfefefeffad41e1e1e1ffe9cd949494ffe6c5fff6e96f6f6fffe6c6f
febd0fff1e0d2d2d2ffd399ff950efff9f2ff9f26fff3e3fff9f0ffd092fff2e1ffb555ffe7c7fff
3e4ff8500ffe0b8ffb6558b8b8bffce8dffebd1ff9408929292ffddb0ff9c19ff9811ffb95cfff8e
effecd3cccccc8e8e8effeed8ffa42d626262c9c9c9666666ffe2bcddddddfffbf7ffa32aff970ee
aeaea686868dadadaffab3a9a9a9a6d6d6effe8c9878787e3e3e3ff9f20f5f5f5b7b7b7efefef868
686ffc77cffe4c1ff9912ffc272ff93056c6c6cffeed7ffd296ffab3d818181ff930aff9e1effaf4
7fffbf5fff0dbff9100cfcfcfff930cffeacf7a7a7affcf90f7f7f7fbfbfbffa835ff9814ffa32ef
fe9cc676767ffc67afff2e2ffb048ff9509ffdbade0e0e0ffa939ffe5c3dcdcdcffc170ffe8cab3b
3b3ffb047f1f1f18c8c8cfffefeffecd4feedd7e8e8e8ffb656ffe2bbfff1df898989ff9b17ffcd8
affefdac3c3c3bdbdbdffe1baffc06cffa431fff7edf9f9f9ecececffaf44fff0dd787878ff9919d
9d9d9ff8f01ffd8a4727272737373e5e5e5ffe2bdffd9a7646464fffaf2ffdbab686b6effc172ffe
9caffe3c0ffdcafffc374ffc477ff981dfffdf9f5f4f2ffb34efff3e2ffe4bfff9e22ffa227fefdf
dffc578f1eae1ffeccf6a6a6bff9102ff9201ff9101fffcf775797e7c7c7cff9203dedede5d5d5d6
b6c6dffbb60ffbc62707070ffa42bffd49bff9f29ffb04affefdcfff7ebf2f2f2ff950af6f2eeffd
fb4696969ffd298ffddb2ff9916ffe1bcff9a0bffa128ffa329b0b0b0ff9d20ff9d23bfbfbfb4b4b
4ffb24bff9409ffd49c727375ffa62fffe3bedbdbdbb9b9b96a6a6a6e72776e6e6effaa39ffa024f
fa324fffefcfff4e5ff9c29ffb351ff9f2bffe3bc919191ff8d03ffa42eff8f02fffaf4fffaf5ff9
000ffa22b9843d85d000000097048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002f94944415478da6
33e95a6ba9b6145fce75b0c8c738f7e674000469effff94ef474d674003a271ebfb81141777f0656
46196999b9925be30c9143d6260ed71b36060d04fb444960f2b656160adb364c000f5698140d2396
b2d8aa8583d83c63757e6edfd8f8eb05c2aaa5af07572e68975da33e57731743dc9f30b5e7f2aaa7
a26b7d495df7e29d2e9b7dfae7b739fc159faf93fc67d39cf24d77b5c665067bcf487c39fe9d35fa
5ee4d0ca52f1c623803b74ebdc4747dc56606dd4927eee9306cd1fb9af989e9ee62d68d2c3d812bf
6b0787c946766906678f274bf5f95fb79a0cf1c1975189ce55e687e137eadc060f6eef732f9a267d
9ecca65920c4bf74edc55a9323d7e373343cd8aaf5bb927685c78e2c7fd756b72b7c4cde52fc2d64
e79bee2bfc8835d7c375efd4edefb60e7f4af6aff2eb19ee438d12a9075eff6f92d4a93e73a099c3
c6a5d2078ad74b7a2dbe55b1322f53608b77e616066d065babd73d7fbfedddedf9cf75dfb15fa826
d8d22efcb775ffe4c906afe23f6ebc7ef4382761ef2f14bbb27adcd79b8e0b7f6b1b2a2e2afcf56f
df35862567859239d71fe8be737ecfc03ff7dfcb2ea0b03d0b853bdc7f337ff3ac117579ba8f4496
fd59f5b3c17aee60845ef7c789bf7a5e217e1b7d6cf04ef4f17b9bf76eb937ce5ab562a522553eef
efcedf38d3175d3aa3dc5ff8b6fdcfdf76163ea7f063ed6770c20e3fe5b4a1dbef35754fe586ad41
99949b3167e7ff8f6997d6c6f8cc67df19b7c4b767cf9a3b9e7c9ec2fa72e4eb812de7ff7cccf49c
b3453b632dc15fac5cc7d67f12bf7947bffb9ae9b38ec6510fffe196cdcbfcf776c0e00d3c549a34
de5ef3ebd60e4fb94f76fbe3aefde93fa4f1ff3eb1dac3a96bc6d91afec8c4dcbf62de08cb8f8f65
95154ea4f86bffcb378a630fefc732cf2c674068b1ad675d3755245affe071ac7a0b1f5d01186af1
62577775c559338eb20bf37fba9e4b4036b3a6ae51edd3eb5a780e3fc5d0fd588fab5ea978318645
6dc3c75fb8bc86d0686f7ed2b0e04293cb0d9df59fee5c45bd5363115a309e5071800dbb45cde95f
0d3420000000049454e44ae426082}}
\u169\'3f 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \intbl \cell \int
bl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \qr \i0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{ \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6ec74e0e_Target}{\*\bkmkend I54b16151eb21
11da90bd8aaf6ec74e0e_Target}
\par
}
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 2D-9
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, Calif. & 9th
Cir. Editions
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
William W Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, and James M. Wagstaffe; Contributing Ed
itors: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, Hon. Gerald E. Rosen, Hon. Roslyn O. Silver, Hon
. Andrew J. Wistrich, Atty. Steven J. Adamski, Atty. Ivo Labar and Atty. Susan B
. Gray
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Chapter 2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
D. Removal Jurisdiction
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li100 \f5 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf28 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f5 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf28 \qc \i0
}
{\li100 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri100 \fs20 \cf28 \i0
9. Effect Of Removal
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls1
\pnindent200 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \f
s20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls1 {\pntext }
{\pard }\li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls
2 \pnindent700 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0
\fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls2 {\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_OUT3_1" }{\fldrslt
{\super \f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
9. Effect of Removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}{\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls3 \pnindent1200 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u16
0\'3f}}{\listtext \li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls3 {\
pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a. [2:3525] State court ousted of jurisdiction:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3526] No order required
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3527] Further state proceedings enjoined:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
b. [2:3528] Effect of prior state court proceedings
}}}
\par {\pntext }
pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3529] Prior restraining orders
}}}
\par {\pntext }
pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3530] Example
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3531] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
60\'3f}}{\listtext \li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls10
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3532] Prior discovery orders:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3533] Prior discovery requests:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3535] Prior law and motion rulings
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3537] Example:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3538] Compare:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:3539] Prior service of process
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:3540] Pending motion for extension of time
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
c. [2:3541] Federal Rules apply after removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3542] Procedures not covered by Federal Rules
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3543] Matters as to which court has discretion
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
d. [2:3550] Standing to sue determined under federal law:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
e. [2:3555] Choice of law rules:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
f. Defendant\rquote s pleadings
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3556] Repleading not required
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3557] Time limit for pleading
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3558] Effect of removing
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
before
}
}
proper service?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3559] Form and content of answer
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3561] May challenge personal jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3562] Compare\u8212\'3fprior waiver of personal jurisdiction defense
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
g. [2:3563] Service of process after removal:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3564] Federal summons
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3565] Timeliness of service
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3566] Defendants served prior to removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3567] Defendants served after removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3568] Statute of limitations problem on service of \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3
f defendants
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3569] State rule (\u8220\'3frelation back\u8221\'3f)
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3570] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3571] Federal rule
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3572] Effect
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:3573] Compare\u8212\'3fsubject matter jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
h. [2:3580] Venue after removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3581] Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fconvenience\u8221\'3f transfers
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3582] Compare\u8212\'3ftransfer under multidistrict rules:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3583] Effect of removing to wrong district
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3584] Effect of removing to wrong division
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:3585] Effect of improper venue in state court
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3586] Contra view:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:3587] Effect of forum-selection clause:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:3591] No challenge by later-served defendants
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
i. [2:3595] Jury demand
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3596] Form of demand
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3597] Civil cover sheet NOT sufficient
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3598] Local rules
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3599] Compare\u8212\'3fpreremoval demand:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3600] Time limit for jury demand
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3601] Cases at issue at time of removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3604] Time extended for service by mail:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3605] Cases not yet at issue at time of removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3606] Exceptions\u8212\'3fno jury demand required
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3607] Late jury demands\u8212\'3fwaiver and relief
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3608] Presumption against waiver
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3609] Relief narrowly granted
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3610] Voluntary dismissal to avoid waiver
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
j. [2:3615] Postremoval changes in case
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3616] Federal claim eliminated; state claims remaining
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3617] Remand discretionary:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3618] Compare\u8212\'3fno discretion to remand where amended pleading show
s diversity:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3619] Remand vs. continuing to exercise jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3622] Remand vs. dismissal of action
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3623] Effect of plaintiff\rquote s \u8220\'3fmanipulative tactics\u8221\'3
f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:3626] Statute of limitations tolled
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3630] Amount in controversy reduced:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3633] Compare\u8212\'3fevidence showing jurisdictional amount lacking at
time of removal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3642] Diversity eliminated by joinder of additional defendants
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3644] No absolute right to amend under FRCP 15(a):
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3645] Court\rquote s discretion
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3646] Rule 19 considerations
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:3647] Statute of limitations
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:3648] Timeliness of motion to amend
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
4) [2:3649] Motive for joinder
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
5) [2:3650] Apparent validity of claim
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
6) [2:3651] Prejudice to plaintiff:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3655] Joinder of nondiverse party requires remand
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3656] Compare\u8212\'3fdismissal improper
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:3657] Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of indispensable party:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:3658] Fraudulent joinder rule not applicable:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:3665] Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
diverse
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3666] No effect on removal jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a) [2:3667] Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
nondiverse
}
}
defendant:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:3668] Court may
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
refuse
}
}
joinder:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3669] Substitution of nondiverse transferee or successor in interest:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:3670] Postremoval amendment adding missing basis for federal jurisdiction
:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:3671] Postremoval denial of certification of class action removed under C
lass Action Fairness Act (CAFA):
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:3672] Postremoval amendment deleting class action claims that were basis
for removal under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA):
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_OUT3_1}{\*\bkmkend co_anchor_OUT3_1}
\par
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
9.
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of Removal
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a. [2:3525]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
State court ousted of jurisdiction:
}
}
Defendant is required to file a copy of the notice of removal with the clerk of
the state court, \u8220\'3fwhich shall effect the removal and the State court sh
all proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin
dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=28USCAS1446&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf
6ec74e0e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ba1000067d06" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1446(d)
}}}
;
}
dType=Y&serNum=2031246042&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aa
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_249&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=c
blt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_249" }{\
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ackerman v. ExxonMobil Corp.
}
}
(4th Cir. 2013) 734 F3d 237, 249\u8211\'3f250
}}}
\u8212\'3fany postremoval action by state court is void
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ab initio
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, any later state court action is void, even if the removal is ultimately he
ld improper! The state court may resume jurisdiction only if and when the case i
s remanded by the federal court. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Wickham)
}
}
(1982) 132 CA3d 670, 676, 183 CR 330, 333
}}}
\u8212\'3fno power to resume if
}
{\f2 \b1 \chcbpat23 \fs20 \cf28 \i0
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
dismisses rather than remands; see also
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Murray v. Ford Motor Co.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1985) 770 F2d 461, 463
}}}
\u8212\'3fstate court has no power to set aside default judgment after
}
removal
}
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3526]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No order required:
}
}
No order by the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
is necessary to complete
}
removal
}
}
}
. The removal is effected automatically by defendant filing the requisite docume
nts and giving the required notice (above). [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7fdd00001ca15" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1446(e)
}}}
;
}
dType=Y&serNum=1981106133&pubNum=345&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6ec
74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_345_584&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1
.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_584" }{\fldr
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rollwitz v. Burlington Northern Railroad
}
}
(D MT 1981) 507 F.Supp. 582, 584]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3527]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Further state proceedings enjoined:
}
}
The statute governing
}
removal
}
}
}
procedures (
}
6ec74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1446
}}}
) is held to authorize
}
federal
}
}
}
}
courts
}
}
}
to enjoin state proceedings in removed cases. [
}
74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_2157&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt
1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_2157" }{\fl
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mitchum v. Foster
}
}
(1972) 407 US 225, 234, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2157, fn. 12]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Moreover, the statute authorizes
}
federal
}
}
}
}
courts
}
}
}
to enjoin
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
later-filed state cases
}
}
that are filed for the purpose of subverting federal
}
removal
}
}
}
jurisdiction. Rationale: \u8220\'3fIt would be of little value to enjoin contin
uance of a state case after removal and then permit the refiling of essentially
the same suit in state court.\u8221\'3f [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1997) 121 F3d 1372, 1378;
}}}
see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Davis Int\rquote l, LLC v. New Start Group Corp.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 2007) 488 F3d 597, 606]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
b. [2:3528]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of prior state court proceedings:
}
}
The federal court takes the action as it stood in the state court when removed.
Thus, all existing orders\u8212\'3fincluding rulings on discovery and extension
s of time to plead\u8212\'3fremain in effect until modified by the federal court
. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1996) 95 F3d 791, 795;
}}}
see
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1450
}}}
\u8212\'3fall \u8220\'3forders and other proceedings had in (state court) action
prior to its removal
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
shall remain in full force and effect
}
}
until dissolved or modified by the district court\u8221\'3f (emphasis and paren
theses added)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3529]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prior restraining orders:
}
}
Once a case is removed, federal rather than state procedural rules govern the f
uture course of proceedings (
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR81&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 81(c)
}}}
). Thus, although existing state orders remain binding upon the parties, their d
uration and effect are now determined by federal law. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
}
}
(1974) 415 US 423, 427, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 1118]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3530]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
State court issues a temporary restraining order without notice. By its terms,
the order is to remain in effect for 21 days (valid under state law). D immediat
ely removes the case to federal court. The restraining order remains in effect,
but its duration is now subject to federal law. (Rule 65(b)(2) limits temporary
restraining orders to 14 days.) [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
}
}
, supra]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3531]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
Even so, the better practice is to comply with the state court\rquote s order u
ntil changed by the federal court!
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3532]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prior discovery orders:
}
}
Discovery
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
orders
}
}
made by the state court before
}
removal
}
}
}
remain in effect
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
unless
}
}
modified or dissolved by the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
. [See
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1450
}}}
;
}
74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_344_54&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.
0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_54" }{\fldrsl
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
First Atlantic Leasing Corp. v. Tracey
}
}
(D NJ 1989) 128 FRD 51, 54;
}}}
see also
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ex Parte Fisk
}
}
(1885) 113 US 713, 725, 5 S.Ct. 724, 729
}}}
(interpreting predecessor statute);
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Melhelm v. Meijer, Inc.
}
}
(SD OH 2002) 206 FRD 609, 615]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3533]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prior discovery requests:
}
}
Arguably, discovery requests (e.g., notice of depositions, document demands, etc
.) served before
}
removal
}
}
}
should also be given effect under
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1450
}}}
unless modified or terminated by the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
. Discovery requests appear to be \u8220\'3fproceedings had in such action prior
to removal\u8221\'3f within the meaning of
}
\u167\'3f 1450
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, the matter is unclear. [See
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_345_1531&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=
cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_1531" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Visicorp v. Software Arts, Inc.
}
}
(ND CA 1983) 575 F.Supp. 1528, 1531
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fWhether or not such discovery is lodged with the state court
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
it is not a matter which remains with any force or effect
}
}
after removal\u8221\'3f (dictum) (emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3534]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER:
}
}
}
Avoid the problem. The better practice in such cases is to contact opposing cou
nsel and get a stipulation as to when the discovery in question shall be due. Or
, if appropriate, simply serve additional discovery requests under the Federal R
ules.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3535]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prior law and motion rulings:
}
}
The federal court has the same power to reconsider and reverse earlier interloc
utory rulings as would the state court. Thus, law and motion rulings made by the
state court will remain in effect, but can be changed by the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
after
}
removal
}
}
}
. [
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
}
}
(9th Cir. 1979) 591 F2d 74, 79]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3536]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
D\rquote s motion for summary judgment is denied by the state court. Later, the
case is removed to federal court. D renews itsmotion for summary judgment. The
federal court may properly grant summary judgment despite earlier denial in the
state court. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Myers v. MooreEngineering, Inc.
}
}
(8th Cir. 1994) 42 F3d 452, 454\u8211\'3f455]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3537]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
D\rquote s challenge to the sufficiency of service was rejected by the state cou
rt judge before removal. Although the decision is not binding later on the feder
al judge, it should be followed as the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
law of the case,
}
}
as long as it was not clearly erroneous or following it would produce an injust
ice. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Redfield v. Continental Cas. Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1987) 818 F2d 596, 604\u8211\'3f605]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3538]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare:
}
}
The federal court may properly disregard earlier state court rulings (e.g., on m
otion for summary judgment) if
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
state law standards differ
}
}
from applicable federal standards. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson
}
}
(9th Cir. 2000) 212 F3d 528, 530\u8211\'3f532
}}}
\u8212\'3fdistrict court did not err in reconsidering state court\rquote s denia
l of summary judgment before removal, which was contended to be law of the case,
because \u8220\'3fthe California summary judgment standard under
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS437C&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
(Calif. CCP) \u167\'3f 437c
}}}
is different in relevant respects from the standard under
}
FRCP 56
}}}
\u8221\'3f (parentheses added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:3539]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prior service of process:
}
}
In determining the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
validity
}
}
of service made prior to
}
removal
}
}
}
, a
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
must apply the law of the state under which the service was made. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Allen v. Ferguson
}
}
(7th Cir. 1986) 791 F2d 611, 616]
}}}
(Service
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
after
}
}
removal is governed by federal law;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3563
}
}
.)
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:3540]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Pending motion for extension of time:
}
}
If a party made a timely motion in state court for an extension of time to plea
d, etc., upon removal it is treated as a pending motion filed before the deadlin
e to respond. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1996) 95 F3d 791, 795
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourt has discretion to grant extension under
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR6&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6ec
74e0e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_a83b000018c76" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 6(b)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
c. [2:3541]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Federal Rules apply after removal:
}
}
Once a case has been removed from state court, it is subject to the Federal Rul
es of Civil Procedure: \u8220\'3fThese rules apply to a civil action after it is
removed from a state court.\u8221\'3f [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_10c0000001331" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 81(c)(1)
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Willy v. Coastal Corp.
}
}
(1992) 503 US 131, 135\u8211\'3f136, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 1079
}}}
\u8212\'3fRule 11 sanctions imposed after removed case dismissed;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2009) 567 F3d 1120, 1125
}}}
\u8212\'3ffederal pleading rules apply regardless of whether substantive law at
issue is state or federal]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Of course, in diversity cases, \u8220\'3fsubstantive\u8221\'3f issues are govern
ed by state law under the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Erie
}
}
doctrine (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
1:121
}
}
). However, \u8220\'3fprocedural\u8221\'3f issues are governed by the FRCP and o
ther federal statutes, where applicable.
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3542]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Procedures not covered by Federal Rules:
}
}
The federal judge may adopt state rules on procedural matters
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
covered by the Federal Rules (e.g., attachment and garnishment procedures;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
1:475
}
}
).
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3543]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Matters as to which court has discretion:
}
}
Also, where the Federal Rules confer
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discretion
}
}
on the district court, it may exercise such discretion on the basis of what wou
ld be appropriate under state law. I.e., the federal court may look to state rul
es \u8220\'3fas an aid in determining what is appropriate as a matter of federal
law.\u8221\'3f [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Edna H. Pagel, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 595
}
}
(9th Cir. 1982) 667 F2d 1275, 1278]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3544]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
D is served with summons in a state court action within the 3\u8211\'3fyear per
iod allowable under
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS583.210&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aa
f6ec74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionTyp
e=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
Calif. CCP \u167\'3f 583.210
}}}
. D removes the action to federal court, and moves for dismissal on the basis of
Federal Rule 41(b) (authorizing the court to dismiss for delay in prosecution).
In ruling on the motion for dismissal, the federal court should \u8220\'3flook
to state law in determining what is appropriate as a matter of federal law.\u822
1\'3f [See
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Edna H. Pagel, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 595
}
}
, supra]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3545\u8211\'3f3549]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
d. [2:3550]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Standing to sue determined under federal law:
}
}
Cases removed from state court are subject to the constitutional and prudential
limitations on standing in federal court (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Ch. 2E
}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, the fact that plaintiff had standing to sue on a state court claim in stat
e court is not determinative: \u8220\'3f(A) state legislature may not waive by s
tatute the prudential or constitutional limitations on standing in federal court
and, by way of a state-created right, confer an Article III injury where none w
ould otherwise exist.\u8221\'3f
}
[
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
MAI Systems Corp. v. UIPS
}
}
(ND CA 1994) 856 F.Supp. 538, 540
}}}
\u8212\'3fstate law allowing disinterested party to enforce unfair competition l
aws on behalf of general public does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
satisfy federal standing requirements (requiring personal stake in controversy)
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3551\u8211\'3f3554]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
e. [2:3555]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Choice of law rules:
}
}
The federal court to which the action is removed normally applies the choice of
law rules of the forum state. This is true whether the basis for removal was div
ersity of citizenship or federal question. [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shannon-Vail Five Inc. v. Bunch
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 270 F3d 1207, 1210;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
1:176 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the action is thereafter transferred to another federal district (under
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1404(a)
}}}
), the transferee district must also apply the choice of law rules of the origin
al forum state. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Van Dusen v. Barrack
}
}
(1964) 376 US 612, 639, 84 S.Ct. 805, 821]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
f.
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendant\rquote s pleadings
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3556]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Repleading not required:
}
}
Defendants who have already filed an answer in the state court need not file an
other answer after
}
removal
}
}
}
(unless the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
so orders). [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_fcf30000ea9c4" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 81(c)(2)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3557]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Time limit for pleading:
}
}
If defendant has not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading in the st
ate court, its answer is due within the time limits prescribed by the FRCP (rath
er than the time limits allowable under state law).
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Federal Rules basically provide that if defendant has not answered the compl
aint at the time of removal, defendant shall answer (or present other available
defenses or objections) within \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
21 days after receiving\u8212\'3fthrough service or otherwise\u8212\'3f
}
}
a copy of the initial pleading . . .\u8221\'3f or within \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
7 days
}
}
after the notice of removal is filed,\u8221\'3f whichever period is longest. [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_fcf30000ea9c4" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 81(c)(2)
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, a responsive pleading is generally due only after defendant has been
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
properly served
}
}
with the summons and complaint. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Silva v. City of Madison
}
}
(7th Cir. 1995) 69 F3d 1368, 1376
}}}
\u8212\'3fno duty to respond where defendant had not been served properly; see a
lso
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.
}
}
(1999) 526 US 344, 354, 119 S.Ct. 1322, 1329
}}}
(dealing with time for removal as opposed to time for responding to complaint)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3558]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of removing
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before
}
}
proper service?
}
}
The time for filing a responsive pleading is unclear where defendant removes an
action to federal court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before
}
}
it has been served with a summons and complaint. Arguably, filing the
}
removal
}
}
}
notice constitutes a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
voluntary appearance
}
}
in the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
proceedings. If so, that should eliminate the need to effect formal service on
defendant and its answer would be due 21 days after the notice of removal was fi
led (even if plaintiff later serves defendant). However, there is no known autho
rity on point.
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3559]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Form and content of answer:
}
}
Since the defendant is now in federal court, his or her answer must meet federa
l pleading standards (
}
74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 8
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
8:81 ff.
}
}
). E.g., it must include specific denials; and it need not be verified, even if
the state court complaint was verified.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3560]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER:
}
}
}
It is sometimes a good idea to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
answer before
}
}
removing the action from state court ... particularly where the state court com
plaint is unverified. In such cases, a general denial is permissible under state
practice (see
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS431.30&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf
Calif. CCP \u167\'3f 431.30(d)
}}}
).
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3561]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
May challenge personal jurisdiction:
}
}
A defendant does not waive challenges to personal jurisdiction by removing the
case to federal court. In lieu of filing an answer, defendant may file a Rule 12
motion challenging service of process or personal jurisdiction.
}
[
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pennebaker v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.
}
}
(SD MS 1994) 155 FRD 153, 157;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Dielsi v. Falk
}
}
(CD CA 1996) 916 F.Supp. 985, 994
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3562]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fprior waiver of personal jurisdiction defense:
}
}
If the defendant waived lack of personal jurisdiction in state court (e.g., by
making a general appearance before
}
removal
}
}
}
), that waiver will bar it from asserting the defense later in
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nationwide Eng. & Control Systems, Inc. v. Thomas
}
}
(8th Cir. 1988) 837 F2d 345, 348]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
g. [2:3563]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Service of process after
}
removal
}
}
}
:
}
}
After
}
removal
}
}
}
from state court, defendants not yet served withsummons may be served in the ma
nner required in cases originally filed in
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1448
}}}
] (The Federal Rules permit service under
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
either federal or state
}
}
rules;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
5:16
}
}
.)
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
When defendant had been served but no proof of service filed before
}
removal
}
}
}
, proof of service must be filed in the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
. Similarly, if under state law technical errors on the face of the summons can
be cured by amendment, postremoval amendments may be made in the federal court i
n the same manner as in the state court. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Beecher v. Wallace
}
}
(9th Cir. 1967) 381 F2d 372, 373]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3564]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Federal summons:
}
}
A new federal summons must be obtained for service after removal. Use of the st
ate court summons is technically invalid. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Dean Marketing, Inc. v. AOC Int\rquote l (USA) Ltd.
}
}
(ED MI 1985) 610 F.Supp. 149, 152]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3565]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Timeliness of service:
}
}
Under the federal rules, summons must be served within 120 days
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
after filing the complaint
}
}
. [
}
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_ea62000089cc6" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 4(m)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
5:254
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3566]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants served prior to removal:
}
}
However,
}
Rule 4(m)
}}}
has no effect on defendants served
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
prior
}
}
to removal. The timeliness of service is determined under applicable state rule
s. Thus, even if defendant waits until after removal to contest the timeliness o
f service, state rules still apply. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2001) 250 F3d 1119, 1122
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
Rule 4(m)
}}}
\rquote s 120\u8211\'3fday limit not applicable where state rule allowed reason
able time]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3567]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Defendants served after
}
removal
}
}
}
:
}
}
The 120\u8211\'3fday time limit on service of summons runs from the date the no
tice of
}
removal
}
}
}
was filed in
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
(rather than from when the action was commenced in state court): \u8220\'3fIn t
he context of
}
removal
}
}
}
, the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
does not obtain an interest in the action\u8212\'3fand cannot therefore dictate
the terms of service\u8212\'3funtil the Notice of
}
Removal
}
}
}
is filed.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Randolph v. Hendry
}
}
(SD WV 1999) 50 F.Supp.2d 572, 580
}}}
\u8212\'3fimmaterial that state time limit on service has expired and complaint
subject to dismissal;
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wallace v. Microsoft Corp.
}
}
(10th Cir. 2010) 596 F3d 703, 706]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3568]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statute of limitations problem on service of \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f defendants:
}
}
State court complaints often name fictitious (\u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f) defendan
ts to permit substitution of named defendants when their identities are discover
ed (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2471
}
}
). The inclusion of \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f defendants does not prevent removabi
lity because the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
disregarded
}
}
in determining diversity. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1441(a)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2476
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Following
}
removal
}
}
}
, some
}
federal
}
}
}
}
courts
}
}
}
will order dismissal of the \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f defendants (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2477
}
}
). But if the \u8220\'3fDoes\u8221\'3f remain in the case, and plaintiff amends
to name new defendants as \u8220\'3fDoes\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
after the statute of limitations
}
}
has run, the issue arises whether the amendment \u8220\'3frelates back\u8221\'3
f to the original complaint to avoid the statute. The question then becomes whet
her the federal court will give the \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f allegations the same
effect as would the state court:
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3569]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
State rule (\u8220\'3frelation back\u8221\'3f):
}
}
The California rule is that defendants may be served anytime within 3 years aft
er commencement of the action (
}
Calif. CCP \u167\'3f 583.210
}}}
). And, where \u8220\'3fDoes\u8221\'3f are named in the original complaint, defe
ndants may be served as \u8220\'3fDoes\u8221\'3f anytime within that three-year
period ... even if they had no prior notice of the action, and even if the statu
te of limitations has run so as to bar any independent action. The amended plead
ing in which they are identified \u8220\'3frelates back\u8221\'3f to the date of
the original complaint against the \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f defendants. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
}
}
(1961) 56 C2d 596, 601\u8211\'3f602, 15 CR 817, 819\u8211\'3f820;
}}}
and Weil & Brown et al.,
}
dType=Y&pubNum=0103977&cite=CACIVPCH.6&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6
ec74e0e&refType=TS&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 6
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The effect may be a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
three-year extension of the statute of limitations
}
}
in cases involving \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f defendants. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lindley v. General Elec. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1986) 780 F2d 797, 801]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3570]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
This isn\rquote t necessarily true in every case: Dismissal for delay in servic
e is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discretionary
}
}
after two years; see
}
Calif. CCP \u167\'3f 583.420
}}}
. And \u8220\'3ffast track\u8221\'3f rules now in effect in many California cour
ts provide an even shorter period for service of summons (e.g., 120 days). [See
Weil & Brown et al.,
}
dType=Y&pubNum=0103977&cite=CACIVPCH.12&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf
6ec74e0e&refType=TS&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 12
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3571]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Federal rule:
}
}
An amended complaint naming a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
new defendant
}
}
does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
relate back to the original complaint unless that defendant
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
knew
}
}
the action was pending and that, but for mistake in naming the original party,
it would have been brought against him. [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 15(c)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
8:1605
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Exception:
}
}
If state law provides the statute of limitations (as in diversity cases), and t
he state \u8220\'3frelation back\u8221\'3f rule is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
more liberal
}
}
than the federal rule, the state rule applies. [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_73390000a9020" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 15(c)(1)(A)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
8:1606
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3572]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect:
}
}
The California \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3f defendant practice has been held to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
extend
}
}
the statute of limitations for the time allowed for service of summons under st
ate law (three years). The rationale is that the \u8220\'3fDoes\u8221\'3f were a
lways present in the case and the real parties are being substituted, not added.
[
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lindley v. General Elec. Co.
}
}
, supra, 780 F2d at 801]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
As a practical matter, it makes no difference whether the \u8220\'3fDoe\u8221\'3
f defendant doctrine is analyzed as an extension of the statute of limitations o
r under the \u8220\'3frelation back\u8221\'3f doctrine. In either case, it is en
ough that the state court action was timely filed and that the three years for s
ervice under state law has not expired. [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
CTS Printex, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
}
}
(ND CA 1986) 639 F.Supp. 1272, 1275\u8211\'3f1276]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:3573]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fsubject matter jurisdiction:
}
}
Regardless of statute of limitations problems, there will be problems of subjec
t matter jurisdiction if the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
newly-added defendant
}
}
is nondiverse. The court has discretion in such cases either to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
deny
}
}
joinder or to permit it and then
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
remand
}
}
to state court. [See
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1447(e)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3642 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3574\u8211\'3f3579]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
h. [2:3580]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Venue after removal:
}
}
The general venue statutes do not apply to an action that has been removed from
state court. Removal
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
automatically satisfies
}
}
federal venue requirements\u8212\'3fi.e., venue is proper as long as removal is
to the district in which the state action was pending. [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1390(c)
}}}
,
}
1441(a)
}}}
; see
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
PT United Can Co. Ltd. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1998) 138 F3d 65, 72;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hollis v. Florida State Univ.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2001) 259 F3d 1295, 1300]
}}}
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The reason is that venue is the defendant\rquote s privilege, and defendant chos
e to transfer the case to the local district court.
}
[See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc.
}
}
(1953) 345 US 663, 665\u8211\'3f666, 73 S.Ct. 900, 902]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3581]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fconvenience\u8221\'3f transfers:
}
}
But this would not prevent a transfer to another district on motion under
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1404(a)
}}}
for \u8220\'3fconvenience of parties and witnesses\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
4:710 ff.
}
}
). [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1390(c)
}}}
; see
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
}
}
(1981) 454 US 235, 240\u8211\'3f241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 258\u8211\'3f259
}}}
\u8212\'3fremoved case transferred under
}
\u167\'3f 1404(a)
}}}
and then dismissed altogether by federal transferee court based on common law f
orum non conveniens]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3582]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ftransfer under multidistrict rules:
}
}
Transfer may also be ordered under federal multidistrict rules to whichever dist
rict \u8220\'3fwill promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.\u822
1\'3f [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1407(a)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
4:930 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3583]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of removing to wrong district:
}
}
If a state court case is removed to the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
wrong
}
}
federal district (e.g., case in San Diego Superior Court removed to Central Dis
trict instead of Southern District), the federal court may either dismiss or tra
nsfer the case to the proper federal district. [See
}
28 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1404(a)
}}}
,
}
1406(a)
}}}
;
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mortensen v. Wheel Horse Prods., Inc.
}
}
(ND NY 1991) 772 F.Supp. 85, 90;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ullah v. FDIC
}
}
(SD NY 1994) 852 F.Supp. 218, 221]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3584]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of removing to wrong division:
}
}
Similarly, if a state court case is removed to the wrong division within a dist
rict, the court normally will transfer to the correct division in the interests
of justice (rather than dismiss or remand). [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1994) 22 F3d 634, 644\u8211\'3f645]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:3585]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of improper venue in state court:
}
}
Most courts uphold removal jurisdiction even if there was a defect in venue or
process in the state court. Rationale: Federal
}
removal
}
}
}
jurisdiction is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not \u8220\'3fderivative
}
}
\u8221\'3f of state court jurisdiction; i.e., the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
to which the action is removed is \u8220\'3fnot precluded from hearing and dete
rmining any claim\u8221\'3f simply because the state court from which the action
was removed \u8220\'3fdid not have jurisdiction over that claim.\u8221\'3f [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_ae0d0000c5150" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1441(f)
}}}
;
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hollis v. Florida State Univ.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2001) 259 F3d 1295, 1299;
}}}
see also
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nishimoto v. Federman\u8211\'3fBachrach & Assocs
}
}
. (9th Cir. 1990) 903 F2d 709, 714, fn. 11;
}}}
and
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1991) 932 F2d 1540, 1548 & fn. 12]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3586]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Contra view:
}
}
Some cases have apparently overlooked
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_ae0d0000c5150" }{\fldrslt
\u167\'3f 1441(f)
}}}
and hold
}
removal
}
}
}
to
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
does not waive any state law venue challenges: \u8220\'3fBecause the jurisdicti
on of the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
on
}
removal
}
}
}
is, in a limited sense, a derivative jurisdiction,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
any defect in jurisdiction or process
}
}
present in the state suit may be asserted in the district court.\u8221\'3f [
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_72&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb
lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_72" }{\fl
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1998) 138 F3d 65, 72\u8211\'3f73
}}}
(emphasis added); see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lambert v. Kysar
}
}
(1st Cir. 1993) 983 F2d 1110, 1113, fn. 2
}}}
\u8212\'3fremoval did not waive right to object that valid forum-selection claus
e made venue improper in forum state]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:3587]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of forum-selection clause:
}
}
If a valid forum-selection clause renders venue improper in the state court in w
hich the action was filed, it also renders venue improper in the federal court t
o which the action has been removed. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lambert v. Kysar
}
}
, supra, 983 F2d at 1113, fn. 2;
}}}
see also
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 138 F3d at 72\u8211\'3f73]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3588\u8211\'3f3590]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:3591]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No challenge by later-served defendants:
}
}
Since removal to the correct federal district establishes proper venue, a defen
dant first served after removal ordinarily cannot challenge the propriety of ven
ue of the removed action.
}
[See
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1390(c)
}}}
;
}
dType=Y&serNum=2022682489&pubNum=4637&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_480&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_4637_480" }{\f
ldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Smith v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
}
}
(SD WV 2010) 727 F.Supp.2d 476, 480;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
4:400.5
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3592\u8211\'3f3594]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
i. [2:3595]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Jury demand:
}
}
The rules governing jury demand play a significant role in the removal process.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If a jury was demanded by either party in state court prior to removal, the dema
nd need not be renewed. [See
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_b1b5000051ac5" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 81(c)(3)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Otherwise, an express jury demand must be filed in the federal district court af
ter removal, in accordance with the federal rules governing jury demands. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wave House Belmont Park, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America
}
}
(SD CA 2007) 244 FRD 608, 609\u8211\'3f610]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3596]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Form of demand:
}
}
A jury trial demand must be in writing and must be served upon the other party.
The jury demand may be a separate pleading, or it may be endorsed upon or attac
hed to another pleading by the party making the demand. [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_a83b000018c76" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 38(b)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FORM:
}
}
}
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Form No. 2:D
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3597]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Civil cover sheet NOT sufficient:
}
}
Merely checking the \u8220\'3fjury demand\u8221\'3f box on the civil cover shee
t is not sufficient compliance with the
}
FRCP 38(b)
}}}
requirements. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wall v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1983) 718 F2d 906, 909]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3598]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Local rules:
}
}
Check your local rules for any additional requirements as to the form of the ju
ry demand. For example, California districts require the jury demand be set fort
h at the end of the pleading and signed by the attorney; and that \u8220\'3fDEMA
ND FOR JURY TRIAL\u8221\'3f appears in the pleading\rquote s caption. [CD CA Rul
e 3.4.10.1; ND CA Rule 3\u8211\'3f6(a);
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000298&cite=CARSCIVLR38.1&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8a
af6ec74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionTy
pe=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
SD CA Rule 38.1
}}}
; ED
}
dType=L&pubNum=1003635&cite=CASPTR201&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
CA Rule 201
}}}
; and see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1975) 511 F2d 668, 674]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3599]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fpreremoval demand:
}
}
A jury demand made in state court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before
}
}
removal is deemed incorporated into the record upon removal. Such demand preser
ves the right to a jury as long as it meets the
}
Rule 38(b)
}}}
standard above (i.e., in writing, served on opposing party). Whether it satisfi
ed state requirements for jury demands is immaterial. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mondor v. United States Dist. Ct. for Central Dist. of Calif.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1990) 910 F2d 585, 586
}}}
\u8212\'3fdemand in caption of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
state
}
}
court complaint held sufficient even though state law required jury demands be
made at time of trial setting;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lutz v. Glendale Union High School
}
}
(9th Cir. 2005) 403 F3d 1061, 1064
}}}
\u8212\'3freference to jury in state complaint\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
prayer
}
}
for relief satisfied
}
FRCP 38(b)
}}}
even though not sufficient as jury demand under Arizona law]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3600]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Time limit for jury demand:
}
}
The time within which a jury must be demanded in cases removed from state court
depends upon whether the case was at issue:
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3601]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Cases at issue at time of
}
removal
}
}
}
:
}
}
In cases removed from California state courts, if the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
initial
}
}
pleadings (complaint
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and answer
}
}
) were served and filed at the time of
}
removal
}
}
}
, a demand for jury trial in
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
must be filed within the following time limits:
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3602]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Demand by defendant:
}
}
If defendant is the party demanding a jury, its demand must be filed within 14
days after it filed the notice of removal.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3603]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Demand by plaintiff:
}
}
If plaintiff is the party demanding a jury, its demand must be filed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
within 14 days after the notice of removal was served upon it
}
}
. [
}
FRCP 81(c)(3)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3604]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Time extended for service by mail:
}
}
Whenever a party has a prescribed period of time to act after document is served
by mail, \u8220\'3f3 days are added\u8221\'3f to the prescribed period. [See
}
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ba1000067d06" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 6(d)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The additional three-day period is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
added to the 14\u8211\'3fcalendar-day period
}
}
required by
}
FRCP 81(c)(3)
}}}
, above. (If the last day falls on a weekend or Sunday, the time is extended to
the next court day.) [
}
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ba1000067d06" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 6(d)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
12:101 ff.;
}
}
dType=Y&serNum=2002741536&pubNum=4637&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_633&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_4637_633" }{\f
ldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Golden Nugget, Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Fishing Co., L.L.C.
}
}
(ED VA 2002) 232 F.Supp.2d 631, 633\u8211\'3f635]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3605]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Cases not yet at issue at time of removal:
}
}
Often, defendant removes the case from state court before filing its answer. In
such cases, the time limit for a jury demand by either party is the same as in
cases originally filed in federal court\u8212\'3fi.e., no later than 14 days aft
er service of the last pleading directed to a jury-triable issue (
}
FRCP 38 (b)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
16:48
}
}
). [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Beckham v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
}
}
(9th Cir. 1982) 691 F2d 898, 905]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3606]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Exceptions\u8212\'3fno jury demand required:
}
}
As stated above, no jury demand is required in
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
if a jury trial had been demanded in state court prior to
}
removal
}
}
}
. [
}
FRCP 81(c)(3)
}}}
; see
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(9th Cir. 1990) 910 F2d 585, 587
}}}
\u8212\'3fupholding preremoval jury demand that satisfied federal standards even
though it did not meet state requirements]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Moreover, in those states whose laws do not require an express jury demand, no s
uch demand is required after
}
removal
}
}
}
. . . unless specifically directed by the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
(which will do so on request of any party). [
}
FRCP 81(c)(3)
}}}
(not applicable in Calif. because
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS631&originatingDoc=I54b16151eb2111da90bd8aaf6ec
74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
Calif. CCP \u167\'3f 631
}}}
requires express jury demand); see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 910 F2d at 586]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3607]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Late jury demands\u8212\'3fwaiver and relief:
}
}
The failure of a party to make a timely demand for a jury trial constitutes a w
aiver of the right. [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ba1000067d06" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 38(d)
}}}
,
}
81(c)(3)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A party may seek relief from such waiver, but the granting of such relief is ent
irely
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discretionary
}
}
with the federal court. [
}
FRCP 39(b)
}}}
;
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Farias v. Bexar County Bd. of Trustees for Mental Health
}
}
(5th Cir. 1991) 925 F2d 866, 873]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3608]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Presumption against waiver:
}
}
Some cases say there is a presumption against unintended waivers of the right t
o a jury trial. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 910 F2d at 587]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3609]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Relief narrowly granted:
}
}
Even so, relief from jury waiver is not readily granted. Excuses that the attor
ney had a \u8220\'3fheavy workload,\u8221\'3f or was \u8220\'3funfamiliar with f
ederal rules,\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fexpected the case to be remanded to state c
ourt,\u8221\'3f are generally not sufficient! Requests for relief on such ground
s are usually denied. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Chandler Supply Co. v. GAF Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1980) 650 F2d 983, 987;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Farias v. Bexar County Bd. of Trustees for Mental Health
}
}
, supra, 925 F2d at 873]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3610]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Voluntary dismissal to avoid waiver:
}
}
A plaintiff who has waived a jury trial may voluntarily dismiss the federal act
ion and refile in state court (if not barred by the statute of limitations). Eve
n though leave of court is required to dismiss, the court is not likely to condi
tion dismissal on continuing waiver of jury in state court. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Templeton v. Nedlloyd Lines
}
}
(5th Cir. 1990) 901 F2d 1273, 1275]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3611]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTERS:
}
}
}
The disinclination of most federal judges to grant relief from jury trial waive
rs is a significant factor in removal cases.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FOR DEFENDANT:
}
}
}
If plaintiff\rquote s case has jury appeal, you may be able to avoid a jury by
}
removal
}
}
}
to
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
. If plaintiff\rquote s lawyer does not know the Federal Rules, he or she may in
advertently waive the right to a jury!
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, if you (defendant) want a jury trial, be sure to include a de
mand with your removal papers, either in a separate document or on the face of t
he removal notice.
}
Although you have 10 days after filing the petition in which to file your jury d
emand, you can avoid slip-ups by filing it with your notice of removal.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FOR PLAINTIFF:
}
}
}
Treat a removal notice as a \u8220\'3fred flag\u8221\'3f if you want a jury tri
al! The time frame within which to demand a jury is so short, and relief from wa
iver so unlikely, that you should file a jury demand automatically upon receipt
of a removal notice. And, you should do so immediately!
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If a waiver has occurred and you feel a jury trial is critical to your case, con
sider seeking a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
dismissal without prejudice
}
}
in order to refile in state court (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3610
}
}
).
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FOR BOTH PARTIES:
}
}
}
Make sure you really want a jury trial before demanding one ... because if eith
er party makes a jury demand, it preserves the right for
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all
}
}
parties. Your demand cannot be withdrawn without the consent of all opposing pa
rties. [
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ba1000067d06" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 38(d)
}}}
; and see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Travelers Indem. Co. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1964) 330 F2d 250, 258]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3612\u8211\'3f3614]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
j. [2:3615]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Postremoval changes in case:
}
}
Removability ordinarily is determined at the time the notice of removal was fil
ed. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins
}
}
(1939) 305 US 534, 537, 59 S.Ct. 347, 348\u8211\'3f349;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2503
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the case was removable at that time, plaintiff cannot thereafter oust the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
of jurisdiction by voluntarily changing the case so as to destroy the ground up
on which
}
removal
}
}
}
was based. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hill v. Rolleri
}
}
(9th Cir. 1980) 615 F2d 886, 889]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
By the same token, if federal jurisdiction did not exist at the time of removal
and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
after
}
}
removal plaintiff adds (or tries to add) a federal claim, removal jurisdiction
is improperly invoked and remand is required (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2506
}
}
). (But, if the court erroneously fails to remand, a federal claim added after r
emoval will support any
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
judgment
}
}
rendered in the case;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3969.
}
}
)
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:3616]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Federal claim eliminated; state claims remaining:
}
}
If a claim \u8220\'3farising under\u8221\'3f federal law existed at the time of
}
removal
}
}
}
, the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
has
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supplemental jurisdiction
}
}
to adjudicate even though the federal claim has been dropped from the case and
only state law claims remain. [
}
74e0e&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill
}
}
(1988) 484 US 343, 108 S.Ct. 614;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nishimoto v. Federman\u8211\'3fBachrach & Assocs.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1990) 903 F2d 709, 715;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Anderson v. Aon Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2010) 614 F3d 361, 364\u8211\'3f365
}}}
(applies to both voluntary and involuntary dismissals)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3617]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Remand discretionary:
}
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1447(c)
}}}
provides: \u8220\'3fIf at any time before final judgment it appears that the di
strict court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
shall
}
}
be remanded\u8221\'3f (emphasis added).
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
, however, compel remand of cases in which federal question jurisdiction
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
existed at the time of removal
}
}
if the federal claim is later dismissed. Legislative history shows Congress int
ended that federal courts exercise discretion whether to remand a case to state
court after all federal claims are dismissed. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int\rquote l Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2003) 344 F3d 931, 936
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourt had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state
law claims after federal claim dismissed (unless dismissal was for lack of subje
ct matter jurisdiction);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Payman v. Lee County Comm. Hosp.
}
}
(WD VA 2004) 338 F.Supp.2d 679, 682
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, \u8220\'3fplaintiff may not compel remand by amending a complaint to elimi
nate the federal question upon which removal was based.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National Ass\rquote n of Securities Dealers, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1998) 159 F3d 1209, 1213
}}}
\u8212\'3fimmaterial that P had
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
right
}
}
to amend complaint without leave of court under
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 15(a)
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
8:1400
}
}
)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3618]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fno discretion to remand where amended pleading shows diversity:
}
}
The district court has no discretion to remand a case after elimination of the f
ederal claim if
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
diversity of citizenship
}
}
then exists under an amended pleading: \u8220\'3f(A) party that has properly re
moved a case need not amend its removal notice or file a new notice after an ame
nded complaint changes the ground for federal jurisdiction.\u8221\'3f [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2006) 471 F3d 975, 976]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3fdefective removal notice:
}
}
The result is different where the ground set forth in the removal notice is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
defective
}
}
(rather than a valid federal ground that is later eliminated). In such cases, i
f an alternative, unpleaded ground for removal exists, defendant must seek leave
to amend removal notice;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3493 ff.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3619]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Remand vs. continuing to exercise jurisdiction:
}
}
When the federal claims have dropped out of the lawsuit
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in its early stages
}
}
and only state law claims remain, it may be an abuse of discretion for the fede
ral district court to retain the case. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
}
}
supra, 484 US at 349, 108 S.Ct. at 618\u8211\'3f619;
}}}
and
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Enochs v. Lampasas County
}
}
(5th Cir. 2011) 641 F3d 155, 159;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:920 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Nevertheless, \u8220\'3fthe district court\rquote s decision to remand remains d
iscretionary and is dependent upon what will best accommodate the values of econ
omy, convenience, fairness and comity.\u8221\'3f [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1991) 934 F2d 203, 205
}}}
\u8212\'3fdistrict court may decide state claims at the same time]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3620] Where the state law claims are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
transactionally related
}
}
(\u8220\'3fpendent\u8221\'3f) to the dismissed federal claim, the federal court
may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
decline
}
}
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_b1b5000051ac5" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1367(c)(3)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2015
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, \u8220\'3fthe animating principle behind the pendent jurisdiction doctrine
supports giving a district court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discretion to remand
}
}
when the exercise of pendent jurisdiction is inappropriate.\u8221\'3f [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hinson v. Norwest Fin\rquote l So. Carolina, Inc.
}
}
(4th Cir. 2001) 239 F3d 611, 616
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3621] Where the state and federal claims are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
related, remand may be proper following dismissal of the federal claim because
the \u8220\'3fseparate and independent\u8221\'3f state claim now predominates. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1441(c)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2850
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3622]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Remand vs. dismissal of action:
}
}
Following dismissal of the federal claim, the federal court may properly dismis
s the action (for lack of federal jurisdiction) or remand the remaining state la
w claims to state court. However, remand is \u8220\'3fpreferable\u8221\'3f to di
smissal because it avoids any statute of limitations problem and the time and ex
pense of filing new pleadings in state court. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1988) 484 US 343, 351, 108 S.Ct. 614, 620]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3flack of removal jurisdiction:
}
}
If it is discovered at any time in the litigation that removal jurisdiction is
lacking (i.e., no diversity or federal question at time of removal), the removed
case
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
must be remanded
}
}
to state court rather than dismissed. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1447(c)
}}}
; see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int\rquote l Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2003) 344 F3d 931, 936;
}}}
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mills v. Harmon Law Offices, P.C.
}
}
(1st Cir. 2003) 344 F3d 42, 45\u8211\'3f46;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3680
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3623]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of plaintiff\rquote s \u8220\'3fmanipulative tactics\u8221\'3f:
}
}
In deciding whether to dismiss or remand, the court may consider whether plaint
iff has engaged in \u8220\'3fmanipulative tactics\u8221\'3f\u8212\'3fi.e., dismi
ssing federal claims after removal
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in order to get back to state court
}
}
: \u8220\'3fIf the plaintiff has attempted to manipulate the forum, the court sh
ould take this behavior into account in determining whether the balance of facto
rs to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine support a remand in
the case.\u8221\'3f [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 484 US at 357, 108 S.Ct. at 622;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brown v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1990) 901 F2d 1250, 1254]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3624] Following
}
removal
}
}
}
of their employment discrimination action to
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
, plaintiffs promptly amended their complaint to remove the federal causes of ac
tion. Since there was no evidence plaintiffs originally included the federal cla
ims in bad faith to create the removal-remand procedure, the amendment was uphel
d as a \u8220\'3fstraightforward tactical decision\u8221\'3f to choose between f
ederal claims and a state forum. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1995) 64 F3d 487, 490\u8211\'3f491]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3625] Plaintiffs included federal RICO claim in state court compla
int. After removal and after propounding interrogatories showing inadequate subs
tantiation of the federal claim, plaintiffs withdrew the RICO count and sought r
emand of supplemental state law claims. Remand was upheld because there was adeq
uate explanation for withdrawal of the claim and remand would \u8220\'3fbest ser
ve principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.\u8221\'3f [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1995) 50 F3d 217, 233]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:3626]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statute of limitations tolled:
}
}
If the court does decide to dismiss, there is normally no bar to renewing the c
laim in state court. State statutes of limitations are tolled where a federal co
urt declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
dismisses
}
}
the state law claim. The time to sue on the dismissed claim (and any other clai
m voluntarily dismissed at the same time or thereafter) \u8220\'3fshall be tolle
d while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed u
nless State law provides a longer period.\u8221\'3f [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ba1000067d06" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1367(d)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:967
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3627\u8211\'3f3629]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:3630]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Amount in controversy reduced:
}
}
If the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 minimum required for diversity
jurisdiction at the time of
}
removal
}
}
}
, plaintiff ordinarily cannot thereafter divest the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
of jurisdiction by reducing his or her claim to less than that amount: \u8220\'
3fEvents occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount
recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.\u8221\'3f [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.
}
}
(1938) 303 US 283, 289\u8211\'3f290, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590\u8211\'3f591]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3631] A
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
postremoval amendment
}
}
to the complaint reducing the damages claim to less than $75,000 does not affec
t removal jurisdiction and cannot be the basis for a remand to state court. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Poore v. American\u8211\'3fAmicable Life Ins. Co. of Texas
}
}
(11th Cir. 2000) 218 F3d 1287, 1291]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3632] Plaintiff\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
postremoval stipulation
}
}
that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 (or to accept no more than
$75,000 at trial) does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
divest the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
of
}
removal
}
}
}
jurisdiction. The court may disregard the stipulation and uphold removal if def
endant proves there was a possibility of a verdict in excess of $75,000 based on
the pleadings
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
at the time of removal.
}
}
[
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rogers v. Wal\u8211\'3fMart Stores, Inc.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2000) 230 F3d 868, 872;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Angus v. Shiley Inc.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1993) 989 F2d 142, 145;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hunt v. DaVita, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2012) 680 F3d 775, 777]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3633]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fevidence showing jurisdictional amount lacking at time of remov
al:
}
}
On the other hand, evidence showing the amount in controversy was less than $75
,000
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
at the time of removal
}
}
may be the basis for a remand motion. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sierminski v. Transouth Fin\rquote l Corp.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2000) 216 F3d 945, 949;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2375 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:3634] Where the complaint contains no allegation as to the amount
in controversy (e.g., in a personal injury action),
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
plaintiff\rquote s admission
}
}
that his or her claim
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
never was
}
}
more than $75,000 may support a remand motion. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores v. Dow Quimica de Colombia S.A.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1993) 988 F2d 559, 565;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Maxom v. Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc.
}
}
(ND OK 1995) 905 F.Supp. 976, 979]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3635\u8211\'3f3639]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3640]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTERS FOR PLAIN\u8211\'3fTIFF:
}
}
}
If you are seeking remand, focus your declarations on showing the amount in con
troversy was not satisfied
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
at the time of removal
}
}
(e.g., small case, limited damages requested in prefiling discussions, etc.). D
o
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
rely solely on the fact it is defendant\rquote s burden to prove the existence
of federal jurisdiction\u8212\'3fmany courts will accept defendant\rquote s unop
posed factual allegations as to jurisdictional amount. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gafford v. General Elec. Co.
}
}
(6th Cir. 1993) 997 F2d 150, 160\u8211\'3f161]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Also, consider submitting a proposed stipulation not to seek more than $75,000 o
nce the case is remanded to state court. Although not controlling (see above), y
our stipulation is still relevant in determining the amount in controversy, and
many federal judges will order remand on this showing.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3641]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTERS FOR DEFENDANT:
}
}
}
If plaintiff seeks remand on the ground the amount in controversy is under $75,
000,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
always seek a stipulation
}
}
that plaintiff will not seek more than that amount in state court. If plaintiff
refuses, it is pretty strong evidence the claim exceeds minimum federal jurisdi
ction and remand should be denied.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Even with such a stipulation, plaintiff may later seek more than that amount in
state court, arguing \u8220\'3fnew facts\u8221\'3f render the stipulation ineffe
ctive. Therefore, to avoid this possibility, also attempt to obtain (i) a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
covenant not to execute
}
}
on any judgment exceeding $75,000 and (ii) a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
waiver of any right to avoid
}
}
the stipulation based on newly-discovered or unknown facts.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In addition, ask the federal judge to include in any remand order, a condition e
xpressly stating the remand shall not affect defendant\rquote s right to remove
the action again if plaintiff tries to avoid the amount in controversy stipulati
on (perhaps with a warning about sanctions in such event). [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nobles
}
}
(MD AL 1996) 928 F.Supp. 1096, 1099]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:3642]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Diversity eliminated by joinder of additional defendants:
}
}
If, after removal, plaintiff seeks to join
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
additional defendants
}
}
whose joinder would destroy diversity, the court may either deny joinder or per
mit joinder and remand the action to state court. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1447(e)
}}}
;
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1998) 157 F3d 686, 691;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Casas Office Machines, Inc. v. Mita Copystar America, Inc.
}
}
(1st Cir. 1994) 42 F3d 668, 672]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:3643]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
P files state court action against D Ins. Co. D removes to federal court on gro
und of diversity. P then seeks leave to amend complaint to name D\rquote s Agent
, a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nondiverse
}
}
party, as codefendant.
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the complaint had originally named Agent as a party, the action would not hav
e been removable from state court on diversity grounds.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But, after
}
removal
}
}
}
, the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
may properly
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
refuse
}
}
to permit the amendment joining Agent (nondiverse party) ... in which event, P
will have to file a separate state court action against Agent (assuming no statu
te of limitations problem).
}
Or, the federal court may permit the amendment and remand the case to state cou
rt because the amendment has destroyed diversity. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1447(e)
}}}
; see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2009) 589 F3d 168, 171]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3644]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No absolute right to amend under
}
FRCP 15(a)
}}}
:
}
}
FRCP 15(a)
}}}
gives plaintiff the right to amend once \u8220\'3fas a matter of course\u8221\'
3f (i.e., without leave of court)
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before defendant files a responsive pleading
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
8:1606
}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, the several courts that have considered this issue hold that
}
Rule 15(a)
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
does not permit
}
}
an amendment destroying diversity jurisdiction after a case has been removed fr
om state court: \u8220\'3fTo apply the permissive standard of
}
Rule 15(a)
}}}
in this situation would allow a plaintiff to improperly manipulate the forum of
an action . . .\u8221\'3f [
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_1086&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs
=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_4637_1086"
}{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Clinco v. Roberts
}
}
(CD CA 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1086
}}}
(citing text);
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Winner\rquote s Circle of Las Vegas, Inc. v. AMI\u8211\'3fFranchising, Inc.
}
}
(D NV 1996) 916 F.Supp. 1024, 1025]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:3645]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Court\rquote s discretion:
}
}
The statute gives the court discretion either to deny the joinder and retain th
e case, or allow the joinder and remand it to state court, but no standards are
provided to guide the exercise of this discretion. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co.
}
}
, supra, 157 F3d at 691;
}}}
}
}{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Clinco v. Roberts
}
}
(CD CA 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1083
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The following factors should be taken into account:
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3646]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Rule 19 considerations:
}
}
Whether the person sought to be joined is a person whose presence is \u8220\'3f
needed for just adjudication\u8221\'3f and would be ordered under Rule 19(a) (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
7:54 ff.
}
}
). [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lopez v. General Motors Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1983) 697 F2d 1328, 1332]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:3647]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statute of limitations:
}
}
Whether, if joinder is denied, the action against the new defendant in state co
urt would be barred by the statute of limitations. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1988) 484 US 343, 352, 108 S.Ct. 614, 620]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:3648]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Timeliness of motion to amend:
}
}
Whether there has been unexplained delay in seeking joinder. [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lopez v. General Motors Corp.
}
}
, supra, 697 F2d at 1332]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
4) [2:3649]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Motive for joinder:
}
}
Whether it appears plaintiff is seeking to join a party solely to destroy diver
sity of citizenship. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mayes v. Rapoport
}
}
(4th Cir. 1999) 198 F3d 457, 463
}}}
\u8212\'3ffraudulent joinder may be \u8220\'3fdispositive factor\u8221\'3f;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of No. America
}
}
(9th Cir. 1980) 623 F2d 1371, 1376\u8211\'3f1377
}}}
(same)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
5) [2:3650]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Apparent validity of claim:
}
}
The stronger the claim, the more likely the joinder will be permitted. [
}
}{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Clinco v. Roberts
}
}
(CD CA 1999) 41 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1083
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
6) [2:3651]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prejudice to plaintiff:
}
}
Any prejudice to plaintiff that could result if the amendment is denied (e.g., w
hether a judgment can be satisfied against the existing defendants; whether the
proposed party can be sued in state court; whether, if not joined, the proposed
party can be subpoenaed to testify at trial). [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co.,
}
}
supra, 157 F3d at 691]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3652\u8211\'3f3654]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:3655]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Joinder of nondiverse party requires remand:
}
}
If the party sought to be joined is nondiverse, the court may permit the amendm
ent, in which event it must remand since it no longer has subject matter jurisdi
ction. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1999) 186 F3d 675, 677
}}}
\u8212\'3fjoinder of nondiverse parties requires remand even if newly joined def
endants are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
indispensable; see also
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 236 F3d 1061, 1068]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3656]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fdismissal improper:
}
}
Neither
}
FRCP 19
}}}
nor
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1447(e)
}}}
authorizes the district court to permit joinder of a nondiverse party and then
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
}
If the joinder that would destroy jurisdiction is allowed, remand is mandatory.
[
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Yniques v. Cabral
}
}
(9th Cir. 1993) 985 F2d 1031, 1035]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Section 1447(e)
}}}
\u8220\'3fengineers a departure\u8221\'3f from the analysis required by
}
FRCP 19
}}}
in that it allows joinder of a necessary nondiverse party and a subsequent
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
remand
}
}
to state court. Under
}
Rule 19
}}}
, a necessary party who, if joined, would destroy complete diversity, could be c
onsidered \u8220\'3findispensable,\u8221\'3f which in turn could require
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
dismissal
}
}
of the lawsuit (
}
FRCP 19(b)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
7:101
}
}
). [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Yniques v. Cabral,
}
}
supra, 985 F2d at 1034]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Comment:
}
}
The difference lies in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
who invokes
}
}
these procedures.
}
Rule 19
}}}
is invoked by defendants under Rule 12(b)(7).
}
Section 1447(e)
}}}
is invoked by plaintiff wishing to join a nondiverse party.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:3657]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of indispensable party:
}
}
If the party to be joined is really \u8220\'3findispensable\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
7:101 ff.
}
}
), the court has no discretion; it must authorize joinder and remand the action.
[See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Costain Coal Holdings, Inc. v. Resource Invest. Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1994) 15 F3d 733, 734]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:3658]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Fraudulent joinder rule not applicable:
}
}
The fraudulent joinder doctrine allows courts to ignore nondiverse parties in th
e state court action at the time of removal (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2423
}
}
). But that doctrine does not apply to joinders that occur after an action is re
moved.
}
Section 1447(e)
}}}
gives defendant the opportunity to object to joinder of parties against whom no
colorable claim can be asserted. \u8220\'3fThere is no need, then, for a doctri
ne that ignores parties who are fraudulently joined after removal, for such part
ies would never be allowed to become defendants in the first place.\u8221\'3f [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1999) 186 F3d 675, 678]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3659]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER FOR PLAINTIFF:
}
}
}
If you want the action remanded to state court, see if there is some nondiverse
party who can be joined
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in good faith
}
}
. Federal courts are inclined to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
grant
}
}
remand motions. Thus, the party joined need not be \u8220\'3findispensable.\u82
21\'3f Be certain, however, that you file a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
motion to amend
}
}
with your motion to remand and that the federal court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
orders
}
}
joinder of the new party
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before
}
}
it remands. Otherwise, you run the risk that the state court judge might not pe
rmit the amendment!
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Alternatively, if defendant removes the case before filing an answer, consider f
iling a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
notice of dismissal without prejudice
}
}
in federal court under
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7b9b000044381" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 41(a)(1)
}}}
. (Neither a court order nor defendant\rquote s consent is required for a volunt
ary dismissal before defendant has answered;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
16:307.
}
}
) You would then be in a position to file a new complaint in state court, this t
ime including the nondiverse defendant, and removal based on diversity will be b
arred.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3660]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER FOR DEFENDANT:
}
}
}
If you have not already done so,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
file an answer
}
}
before or concurrently with filing your notice of removal. That will prevent pl
aintiff from dismissing the action in federal court under
}
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7b9b000044381" }{\fldrslt
Rule 41(a)(1)
}}}
without your consent (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
16:307
}
}
).
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add a nondiverse defendant, you can argue,
if appropriate, that plaintiff\rquote s apparent motive is to defeat diversity,
and the fact this party was not named in the original complaint shows that it is
neither indispensable nor necessary for determination of the issues raised in t
he case.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3661\u8211\'3f3664]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:3665]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
diverse
}
}
}
\u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
local\u8221\'3f defendant:
}
}
A different joinder question arises where, following removal, plaintiff moves t
o amend the complaint to add a defendant who would not defeat diversity but who
is a local citizen (a \u8220\'3fforum defendant\u8221\'3f).
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:3666]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No effect on removal jurisdiction:
}
}
If named in the original complaint, the forum defendant\rquote s presence would
have prevented removal under the no-local-defendant rule (
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_c0ae00006c482" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1441(b)(2)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2320 ff.
}
}
). But that rule applies only at the time the notice of removal is filed.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Postremoval joinder
}
}
of a \u8220\'3fforum defendant\u8221\'3f does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
oust the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Spencer v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. of Calif. (Altec Industrie
s, Inc.)
}
}
(9th Cir. 2004) 393 F3d 867, 871]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a) [2:3667]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nondiverse
}
}
defendant:
}
}
The rule is different where the federal court permits postremoval joinder of a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nondiverse defendant.
}
}
Such joinder destroys removal jurisdiction and the court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
must remand
}
}
to state court.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3924 ff.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:3668]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Court may
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
refuse
}
}
joinder:
}
}
In any case, the district court may deny leave to join a forum defendant where t
here is either:
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
actual fraud
}
}
in the pleading of jurisdictional facts\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2425
}
}
); or
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8212\'3fthere is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no reasonable possibility
}
}
that plaintiff will be able
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
to establish a cause of action
}
}
against the local defendant under state law. [See
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Smallwood v. Illinois Central R.R. Co.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2004) 385 F3d 568, 573
}}}
(en banc)\u8212\'3fbecause federal preemption defense to local defendant\rquote
s claim also applied to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all
}
}
defendants in removed action, case dismissed on
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
merits
}
}
, not remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:3669]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Substitution of nondiverse transferee or successor in interest:
}
}
Remand is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
required where a nondiverse party (plaintiff or defendant) is substituted as a
transferee or successor in interest to one of the original parties under Rule 25
(c) (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
7:366 ff.
}
}
). A transfer-of-interest-based substitution is not a \u8220\'3fjoinder\u8221\'3
f within the meaning of
}
\u167\'3f 1447(e)
}}}
. Thus, as long as removal jurisdiction existed at the time of removal, it is no
t affected by transfers during the course of litigation. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Burka v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
}
}
(DC Cir. 1996) 87 F3d 478, 483\u8211\'3f484;
}}}
see
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. KN Energy, Inc.
}
}
(1991) 498 US 426, 428, 111 S.Ct. 858, 860
}}}
\u8212\'3foriginal diversity jurisdiction not affected by such transfers]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:3670]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Postremoval amendment adding missing basis for federal jurisdiction:
}
}
If a complaint is amended after
}
removal
}
}
}
to allege a claim within federal jurisdiction,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
removal
}
}
}
is upheld
}
}
despite the fact that federal jurisdiction was lacking (i.e., no diversity or f
ederal claim) at the time of
}
removal
}
}
}
: \u8220\'3f(I)f a plaintiff voluntarily amends his complaint to allege a basis
for federal jurisdiction, a
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
may exercise jurisdiction even if the case was improperly removed.\u8221\'3f [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Moffitt v. Residential Funding Co., LLC
}
}
(4th Cir. 2010) 604 F3d 156, 159
}}}
\u8212\'3fpostremoval amendment gave rise to federal jurisdiction under CAFA;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2000) 225 F3d 1042, 1046
}}}
\u8212\'3fpost-removal amendment gave rise to federal jurisdiction under America
ns with Disabilities Act]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:3671]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Postremoval denial of certification of class action removed under Class Action F
airness Act (CAFA):
}
}
Because jurisdiction is determined by the record at the time of
}
removal
}
}
}
, the
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court\rquote s
}
}
}
postremoval denial of class certification does not affect its jurisdiction in C
AFA cases (e.g., thus allowing it to adjudicate non-class, state law claims). [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Vega v. T\u8211\'3fMobile USA, Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2009) 564 F3d 1256, 1268, fn. 12;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc
}
}
. (7th Cir. 2010) 592 F3d 805, 806;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Service Wo
rkers Int\rquote l Union, AFL\u8211\'3fCIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2010) 602 F3d 1087, 1092;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
10:497.5
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:3672]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Postremoval amendment deleting class action claims that were basis for removal u
nder Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA):
}
}
Similarly, CAFA jurisdiction is secure even if, after removal, plaintiffs amende
d their complaint to eliminate the class allegations. I.e., plaintiffs cannot \u
8220\'3famend away\u8221\'3f CAFA jurisdiction after a case has been removed. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co
}
}
. (7th Cir. 2010) 606 F3d 379, 380]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:3673\u8211\'3f3679]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u169\'3f 1989-2014 by The Rutter Group, a Thomson Reuters Business
\par
}
}
{\f5 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2014)
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10 \
brdrcf29 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10 \
brdrcf29 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b1 \ql \ri24 \fs16 \cf29 \i0
End of Document
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf29 \i0 \intbl \cell \i
ntbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b0 \ri24 \fs16 \cf29 \qr \i0
\u169\'3f 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf29 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \r
ow }}\par
}
}\sect }

9 Effect of Removal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Effect of Removal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

{\rtf1 \ansi

You might also like