Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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.

The forum defendant rule under 28 USC 1441(b)(2) is a procedural, not a substantive bar to removal jurisdiction and so must be raised by a remand motion brought within 30 days of the filing of the removal notice or it is waived.  Here, the remand motion was filed on the 31st day after the removal petition.  Nevertheless, it was timely… Read More

The district court erred in remanded this suit to state court after defendant removed it under 28 USC 1442, the federal officer removal statute.  To invoke federal jurisdiction under that section, the defendant must show (a) it is a “person” within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal… Read More

Plaintiff filed a 1983 action against a police officer claiming that he had violated his federal civil rights by killing a man who was a father figure to him.  On the defendant's motion, the district court dismissed the action finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because plaintiff did not allege any not allege amy custodial, biological, or legal… Read More

Following City of Oakland v. BP, PLC (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 895, this decision holds that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over San Mateo's public nuisance suit against energy companies for promoting use of their fossil fuels thereby causing global warming and rising sea levels that threatened harm to county property.  The county's state law claims do… Read More

As the party invoking federal judicial power, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to support Article III standing (with the manner and degree of evidence appropriate to the stage of litigation--which on a motion for remand means taking alleged facts to be true).  Here, Experian established plaintiffs' standing.  They alleged that Experian had violated 15… Read More

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

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

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