Two recent decisions prove that nothing is as simple as it seems especially removal. The opinions by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February illustrate hidden traps in the removal process. Given the importance of forum to the outcome, litigation counsel should understand not just the letter of removal statutes, but the nuances developed by recent case law.
Most trial lawyers know the basic rule: Defendants may remove a case from state to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction because of either diversity of citizenship or subject matter. But removal jurisdiction, particularly when based on diversity, is limited by the so-called "forum defendant rule." That rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), precludes removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction where one of the defendants that has been "properly joined and served" is a citizen of the forum state.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
