Home » Removal Jurisdiction (Litigator Series) by LandMark Publications
Removal Jurisdiction (Litigator Series) LandMark Publications

Removal Jurisdiction (Litigator Series)

LandMark Publications

Published November 26th 2014
ISBN :
Kindle Edition
564 pages
Enter the sum

 About the Book 

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 37 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the removal jurisdiction of the federal district courts. The selection of decisions spans from January 2012 to the date of publication.FederalMoreTHIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 37 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the removal jurisdiction of the federal district courts. The selection of decisions spans from January 2012 to the date of publication.Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. [T]he right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress. These statutory procedures for removal are to be strictly construed. Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32, 123 S.Ct. 366, 154 L.Ed.2d 368 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280, 38 S.Ct. 237, 62 L.Ed. 713 (1918)). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction [over a removed case], the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Energy Management Services v. City of Alexandria, 739 F. 3d 255 (5th Cir. 2014)Subject matter jurisdiction over a state claim in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) exists when the amount in controversy is satisfied and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. The burden is on the removing party to show that removal is proper. Any doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved against federal jurisdiction. (footnotes omitted.) Vantage Drilling Co. v. Hsin-Chi Su, 741 F. 3d 535 (5th Cir. 2014)28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides that a civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants. To remove to federal court, the defendant or defendants must file a notice of removal, containing a short and plain statement of grounds for removal. Id. § 1446(a). The Supreme Court has construed these statutes to require all defendants in a case to join in or consent to removal, creating the so-called rule of unanimity. See Mayo v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince Georges Cnty., 713 F.3d 735, 741 (4th Cir.2013) (citing Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 620, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002)). The rule of unanimity is consistent with our obligation to construe removal jurisdiction strictly because of the significant federalism concerns implicated. Maryland Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 260 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)- see also Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941). The rule of unanimity helps to effectuate Congresss intent in limiting removal to prevent it from being used too broadly or casually. Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company, 736 F. 3d 255 (4th Cir. 2013)