During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Removal

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (2021)

Under 28 USC 1447(d) an order remanding a case to state court is reviewable on appeal if the case was removed pursuant to 28 USC 1442 (federal officer) or 1443 (civil rights).  This decision holds that on such an appeal, the appellate court may review all grounds on which the remand order was based.  Review isn't limited to determining whether… Read More

Academy of Country Music v. Continental Casualty Co. (9th Cir. 2021)

The district court's transmittal of its remand order to the state court from which the action had been removed does not deprive the Court of Appeals of appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order.  Also, 28 USC 1447(d) does not block review unless the remand is granted on one of the grounds allowed under 28 USC 1447(c)--i.e., lack of subject… Read More

Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020)

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

Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc.

by Jan T. Chilton |

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

Grancare, LLC v. Thrower

by Jan T. Chilton |

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

Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

by Jan T. Chilton |

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

Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

by Kerry W. Franich |

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

Corona-Contreras v. Gruel

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

Labertew v. Langemeier

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