Removal

When the complaint does not allege facts disclosing the amount in controversy, a defendant removing the case under CAFA need only allege facts that plausibly show that the case satisfies CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, including the amount in controversy.  The notice of removal need not cite evidence supporting the allegations of those jurisdictional facts.  The plaintiff can challenge the notice of… Read More

Defendant wrongly removed the case under federal officer removal provision, since defendant was not acting as a government contractor in selling weapons with the plaintiff, even if the defendant acted as a government contractor in selling the same weapons to the US military. Read More

Elder abuse case was properly remanded—and attorney fees properly awarded against defendant removing party—by the district court after defendant's fraudulent joinder theory was appropriately rejected. Read More

The amount in controversy for federal jurisdictional purposes includes all relief, including awards of future damages, that could be awarded to the plaintiff, if successful, on the complaint as it stands on the date of removal. Read More

Demurring in state court does not waive the right to remove the case to federal court, at least when the complaint does not reveal on its face that the case is removable. Also, waiver of the right to remove is not a jurisdictional defect so the district court cannot remand sua sponte on that ground. Read More

A district court may not, sua sponte, remand an action to state court for procedural defects in the removal, but may do so only on a timely remand motion.  Read More

A garnishment proceeding against a third party not involved in the original state court proceeding is a separate action which the garnishee can remove to federal court, and after removal, the action is governed by the federal rules of procedure, not state garnishment procedure.  Read More