Notes on Removal and Remand

Overview of Removal and Remand

  • Topic emphasizes a review of subject matter jurisdiction with a focus on the removal statute.

Defendant's Rights in Court Choices

  • A key question is whether a defendant can challenge the plaintiff's choice of court (state vs. federal).
  • If a plaintiff selects a state court, may the defendant remove the case to federal court in the same district?

Statutory References

  • 28 USC Section 1441 must be understood; students are encouraged to engage in exercises related to this section on pages 241-242.
    • These exercises will enhance practical understanding of how the statute applies across different contexts.
    • The focus is on practical steps for defendants wishing to pursue removal for clients.

Caterpillar v. Lewis Case

  • This case introduces a narrow exception to the typical rigid application of jurisdictional rules.
  • Central Issue:
    • The Supreme Court examined a situation where a district court wrongly accepted removal on diversity grounds despite lack of complete diversity at the time of removal.
    • Even if the plaintiff pointed out this issue, by the time the judgment was made, complete diversity existed due to dismissal of the non-diverse defendant.
    • Question: Can the court still retain jurisdiction after addressing the lack of diversity, once complete diversity is established?
  • Key Takeaway:
    • This case reflects the Supreme Court's approach to "harmless error," allowing for flexibility in jurisdictional issues under specific circumstances.

Importance of Timing

  • The discussion underlines that the timing of jurisdictional requirements is critical.
  • Plaintiff must clearly argue against removal if they want to remand the case to state court; timing can significantly impact jurisdiction.

Comparative Analysis: Caterpillar vs. Motley

  • Motley Case: The Supreme Court intervened without request to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to satisfy the "well-pleaded complaint" rule.
  • The contrast with Caterpillar is stark:
    • In Motley, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction when it reached the case.
    • Conversely, in Caterpillar, by the appeal stage, jurisdiction had been validly established.
  • Conclusion:
    • Do not rely on the Caterpillar-like rule to rectify improper removal requests—defendants need to ensure proper basis for removal exists from the outset.

Practical Application for Students

  • Engage with exercises on pages 241-242 as they are critical for understanding statutory application.
  • Prepare for potential bar exam questions by reviewing scenarios that echo these principle cases.
  • Aimed to shift students from passive learning to active engagement in understanding legal processes.