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
