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.
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
