Removal and remand are key processes in civil procedure that allow cases to move between state and federal courts. They're crucial tools for litigants to navigate jurisdictional issues and choose their preferred forum.
Understanding removal and remand is essential for grasping how subject matter jurisdiction works in practice. These procedures directly impact where a case is heard, potentially affecting its outcome and the strategies employed by both plaintiffs and defendants.
Removal of Cases to Federal Court
Purpose and Process of Removal
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Process of Removal
FRE 502(d) Orders - Discovering E-Discovery - Research Guides at Florida State University ... View original
Is this image relevant?
The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
FRE 502(d) Orders - Discovering E-Discovery - Research Guides at Florida State University ... View original
Is this image relevant?
The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Process of Removal
FRE 502(d) Orders - Discovering E-Discovery - Research Guides at Florida State University ... View original
Is this image relevant?
The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
FRE 502(d) Orders - Discovering E-Discovery - Research Guides at Florida State University ... View original
Is this image relevant?
The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Removal transfers cases from state to federal court when federal courts have original jurisdiction
- Protects defendants' right to litigate in federal court for federal questions or diverse citizenship
- Governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1455 outlining requirements and procedures
- Defendant initiates removal by filing notice in federal district court within 30 days of receiving initial pleading
- Defendant must promptly serve written notice to adverse parties and file copy with state court clerk
- Case automatically removed upon filing notice, but federal court may remand if removal improper
- Removal provides forum choice for defendants (state vs federal court)
- Impacts litigation strategy and potential outcomes for both parties
Removal Process Steps
- Review complaint to determine if federal jurisdiction exists
- Assess timing requirements for filing notice of removal
- Prepare notice of removal with required information (grounds for removal, copy of all process/pleadings)
- File notice of removal in appropriate federal district court
- Serve notice on plaintiff and file copy with state court
- Respond to any motion to remand filed by plaintiff
- Continue litigation in federal court if removal upheld
Statutory Requirements for Removal
Key Statutory Provisions
- 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) allows removal of civil actions where federal courts have original jurisdiction
- Removal based on federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)
- Forum defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) prohibits diversity removal if any defendant is citizen of forum state
- Rule of unanimity in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) requires all properly joined defendants to consent to removal
- Exceptions to unanimity include nominal parties, fraudulently joined parties, unserved defendants
- Removing party bears burden of establishing proper removal and meeting all statutory requirements
Procedural Requirements
- Notice of removal filed within 30 days of receiving initial pleading or summons
- All defendants must join in or consent to removal (rule of unanimity)
- Notice must contain short plain statement of grounds for removal
- Copy of all process, pleadings, and orders from state court must be included
- Notice must be signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Promptly file copy of notice with state court clerk
- Serve written notice on all adverse parties
Federal Question vs Diversity Jurisdiction
Federal Question Jurisdiction
- Requires plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint to raise substantial federal law issue
- Federal question must be part of plaintiff's cause of action
- Determined from face of complaint; federal defense insufficient for removal
- Arises under federal constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States
- Examples: patent infringement claims, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Diversity Jurisdiction
- Amount in controversy must exceed $75,000
- Complete diversity required between all properly joined plaintiffs and defendants
- Citizenship determined at time of filing and removal; subsequent changes irrelevant
- Corporate citizenship based on state of incorporation and principal place of business
- "Nerve center" test from Hertz Corp. v. Friend determines principal place of business
- Special rules for Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) cases with different requirements
- Examples: contract disputes between citizens of different states, tort claims between diverse parties
Determining Jurisdiction
- Analyze complaint to identify federal claims or diverse parties
- Assess amount in controversy through good faith estimate at time of removal
- Consider citizenship of all parties, including corporations and unincorporated associations
- Evaluate potential fraudulent joinder or improper joinder of non-diverse parties
- Review any special jurisdictional statutes applicable to the case (CAFA, federal officer removal)
Remand Procedure and Grounds
Remand Process
- Motion to remand for procedural defects filed within 30 days of removal notice
- Motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be made any time before final judgment
- Party opposing remand bears burden of establishing proper removal and federal jurisdiction
- Court must remand if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1447(c))
- Court may remand state law claims after dismissing claims with original jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(c))
- Remand orders generally not reviewable on appeal, with limited exceptions (CAFA cases)
Common Grounds for Remand
- Lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction (no federal question or incomplete diversity)
- Procedural defects in removal process (untimely filing, failure to obtain unanimous consent)
- Violation of forum defendant rule (diverse defendant is citizen of forum state)
- Improper joinder or fraudulent joinder of non-diverse parties
- Failure to meet amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases
- Abstention doctrines requiring federal court to decline jurisdiction
- Examples: Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, Colorado River abstention
Key Terms to Review (29)
Colorado River Abstention: Colorado River abstention is a legal doctrine that allows federal courts to dismiss a case in favor of a parallel state court proceeding, recognizing the need for comity between federal and state judicial systems. This doctrine is rooted in the principle that federal courts should defer to state courts when the state has a significant interest in resolving the dispute and when doing so would avoid duplicative litigation. It emphasizes the respect for state sovereignty and promotes judicial efficiency.
Younger Abstention: Younger Abstention is a legal doctrine that discourages federal courts from intervening in certain state court matters, particularly when the state is pursuing important interests and when the plaintiff has an adequate forum to resolve their claims. This principle aims to respect the states' rights to regulate their own affairs and to avoid unnecessary federal interference in sensitive areas like family law, criminal matters, and certain regulatory disputes.
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is a legal principle that prohibits federal courts from reviewing or overturning state court decisions. This doctrine essentially prevents a losing party in state court from seeking federal court relief for claims that are essentially appeals of the state court's judgment. It serves to respect the finality of state court rulings and aims to preserve the federal-state balance in the judicial system.
CAFA: The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is a federal law enacted in 2005 that provides federal courts with jurisdiction over certain class action lawsuits, primarily those involving diversity of citizenship and a total amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. CAFA was designed to address perceived abuses in the class action system by moving many class actions from state courts to federal courts, where it is believed there is a more uniform standard of fairness.
Rule 11: Rule 11 refers to a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that requires attorneys and parties to certify that their pleadings, motions, and other papers are not being presented for any improper purpose, are warranted by existing law, and have evidentiary support. This rule aims to prevent frivolous litigation and promotes responsible advocacy within the legal process, ensuring that all parties engage in honest and fair representation.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A): 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) is a provision that governs the procedure for removing a case from state court to federal court when there are multiple defendants. This section specifically states that all defendants who have been properly joined and served must consent to the removal of the case, ensuring that no defendant can unilaterally decide to remove a case without the agreement of the others.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2): 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) is a statute that addresses the removal of cases from state court to federal court, specifically outlining the limitations on removal based on the citizenship of the parties involved. This section is crucial in determining whether a case can be removed when a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought, establishing a principle known as 'forum defendant rule'. Understanding this statute is essential for grasping how removal and remand processes operate in civil procedure.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a): 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) is a federal statute that outlines the conditions under which a defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court. This statute specifies that a civil action can be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court, meaning it involves federal questions or parties from different states with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Unanimity Requirement: The unanimity requirement is a legal principle stating that all parties involved in a civil action must agree to the removal of a case from state court to federal court. This requirement ensures that no party is forced into federal jurisdiction against their will, thereby maintaining fairness and protecting the rights of defendants who may prefer to remain in state court.
Timeliness of Removal: Timeliness of removal refers to the legal requirement that a defendant must file a notice of removal to federal court within a specified time frame after receiving the initial complaint. This concept is crucial because failing to meet the deadline can result in the case remaining in state court, significantly impacting a defendant's strategy and rights in the litigation process.
U.S. District Court: The U.S. District Court is the general trial court of the federal court system, where most federal cases are initiated. These courts have jurisdiction to hear both civil and criminal cases that fall under federal law, and they operate at a regional level across the United States. Decisions made in district courts can be appealed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, making them essential in the federal judiciary process.
28 U.S.C. § 1446: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 is a federal statute that outlines the procedure for a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to federal court. This statute establishes the requirements for filing a notice of removal, including the time frame and the necessary contents of the notice, as well as the obligation to notify all adverse parties and the state court.
Jurisdictional defect: A jurisdictional defect refers to a failure of a court to have proper authority to hear and decide a case, which can stem from factors such as lack of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the parties involved. This defect can result in the dismissal of a case or the inability to enforce a judgment, as the court is not recognized as having the legal power to adjudicate the dispute. Jurisdictional defects are critical in determining the correct forum for a case and ensuring that parties receive due process.
30-day rule: The 30-day rule is a procedural guideline in civil litigation that establishes a specific timeframe for parties to act following certain events, such as the filing of a notice of removal or the issuance of a judgment. This rule is crucial as it dictates the time within which a party must file motions or appeals, and missing this deadline can result in the loss of the right to challenge a court's decision. Understanding this timeframe is essential for ensuring that procedural rights are preserved and that actions are timely taken.
28 U.S.C. § 1441: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is a federal statute that governs the removal of civil actions from state courts to federal courts. This statute allows defendants to transfer cases to federal court when the case meets specific criteria, such as diversity of citizenship or a federal question, thereby establishing the grounds for federal jurisdiction.
Motion to remand: A motion to remand is a legal request made to a court to send a case back to the court from which it was originally removed. This process is significant as it allows parties to contest the appropriateness of removal, asserting that the case should be heard in its original jurisdiction due to issues such as lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction or improper removal procedures.
Notice of Removal: A notice of removal is a legal document filed by a defendant in a state court to transfer a case to federal court. This process is initiated under federal law and is typically based on claims of diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. The notice must comply with specific procedural rules and must be filed within a set time frame, which connects to the concepts of removal and remand, allowing parties to seek a different forum for resolution.
Remand to state court: Remand to state court refers to the process where a federal court sends a case back to the state court from which it was removed. This typically occurs when the federal court determines that it does not have jurisdiction over the case or that the case should be handled in state court due to various legal reasons, such as lack of federal questions or diversity jurisdiction issues.
Remand order: A remand order is a directive issued by a higher court to send a case back to a lower court for further proceedings. This often occurs when the higher court identifies that the lower court made errors in its judgment or when additional information or actions are necessary before a final decision can be made. This concept is crucial in understanding how appeals function, particularly in cases involving federal question jurisdiction and the procedures for removal and remand in civil cases.
Removal Jurisdiction: Removal jurisdiction refers to the ability of a defendant to transfer a case filed in state court to federal court. This process is significant because it allows defendants to seek a federal forum, which they may perceive as more favorable for their case. Removal jurisdiction is particularly connected to federal question jurisdiction, as cases that involve federal law can be removed to federal court regardless of the parties' citizenship, and it is governed by specific statutes that dictate when and how removal can occur.
28 U.S.C. § 1331: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a statute that provides federal courts with original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. This means that if a case involves a federal question, it can be filed in federal court rather than state court. Understanding this statute is crucial for determining whether a federal court can hear a case based on the issues at hand and plays a significant role in both the initiation of lawsuits and the processes for removing cases from state to federal courts.
Forum defendant rule: The forum defendant rule is a legal principle that prevents a defendant from removing a case to federal court if they are a citizen of the state in which the lawsuit was filed. This rule is aimed at protecting plaintiffs from being forced to litigate in a federal court that may be more favorable to the defendant, thus promoting fairness in the judicial process. It plays a significant role in cases involving diversity jurisdiction and affects the removal of cases from state to federal courts.
Complete diversity: Complete diversity refers to the requirement in federal diversity jurisdiction that all plaintiffs must be citizens of different states than all defendants in a lawsuit. This concept is essential because it ensures that federal courts only hear cases involving parties from different states, thereby avoiding any potential bias that may arise from state courts favoring their own citizens. Understanding complete diversity is crucial for determining the appropriate court for a case and how parties can navigate issues related to jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1332: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 establishes the federal court's jurisdiction over civil cases involving parties from different states, known as diversity jurisdiction. This statute allows for cases to be heard in federal court when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This provision aims to provide an impartial forum for litigants from different jurisdictions, thus reducing potential bias that might arise in state courts.
Amount in controversy: Amount in controversy refers to the monetary value of the claims or demands made by a party in a lawsuit. It is crucial for determining whether a case can be heard in federal court, particularly in diversity jurisdiction, where the amount must exceed a specific threshold. This concept also plays a vital role in removal and remand processes as well as in interpleader cases, influencing the jurisdictional reach of courts and the rights of parties involved.
State court: A state court is a judicial system established by individual states to adjudicate legal disputes and administer justice under state law. These courts have the authority to handle a wide range of cases, including criminal, civil, family, and probate matters, and they play a critical role in the overall legal framework within each state. State courts operate independently of federal courts, and their decisions can only be reviewed by higher state courts or, in certain instances, the U.S. Supreme Court.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject matter jurisdiction that allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are from different states or countries and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This type of jurisdiction is designed to provide a neutral forum for parties who may not receive an unbiased trial in their own state courts.
Federal Question Jurisdiction: Federal question jurisdiction refers to the authority of federal courts to hear cases that arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. This jurisdiction ensures that federal courts can resolve issues involving federal statutes and constitutional questions, providing a uniform interpretation and application of the law across all states.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are a set of rules that govern civil legal proceedings in the United States federal courts. These rules establish the framework for the conduct of litigation, including the initiation of lawsuits, the discovery process, and the overall management of cases to ensure fair and efficient resolution.