Source: https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/fpmd/chapter2/section7
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:49:37+00:00

Document:
In addition to motions to change venue, removal serves as a device for defendants to avoid the plaintiff's choice of forum. Sections 1441 and 1442 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code cover the removal of cases from state court to federal court. Section 1446, which was substantially amended by the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, sets forth the procedure for removal and Section 1447 deals with post-removal procedure, including remands to state court.
It is useful to remember, as the Fourth Circuit observed, that “[r]emoval statutes do not create jurisdiction. They are instead a mechanism to enable federal courts to hear the cases that are already within their original jurisdiction.”1 Removal provides a federal forum to defendants wishing to litigate federal claims in federal rather than state court and to defendants in diversity cases filed in the plaintiff's home state court. Because removal jurisdiction requires that the case invoke original federal jurisdiction, the discussion in Chapter 2.3 of federal court jurisdiction is helpful in understanding principles of removal jurisdiction.
Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over state law claims joined with removed federal claims under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. The codification of supplemental jurisdiction principles in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has held, “applies with equal force to cases removed to federal court as to cases initially filed there; a removed case is necessarily one ‘of which the district courts ... have original jurisdiction.’”37 Thus, when joined state law claims meet the statutory standards of supplemental jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over both the state and the federal claims.
The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act has clarified what a federal court must do when a federal question claim is joined by a state law claim that is not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court. In such case, the entire case may be removed and the district court must then sever and remand the state law claims.38 This newly drafted provision eliminates the constitutional and interpretive difficulties presented in its predecessor's “ separate and independent” claim language.
1. Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 444 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
2. Defendant is defined narrowly. A state-court plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim, which, had it been an independent action, would have been subject to original federal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). Most courts have held that third-party defendants are not entitled to remove under Section 1441. Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 333 (4th Cir. 2008); Casul v. Modell's NY II, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 7204, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19604, *5-6, 2004 WL 2202581, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004); Sanford v. Premier Millwork and Lumber Company, 234 F. Supp. 2d 569, 571 (E.D. Va. 2002); Johnston v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 134 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Mich. 2001); but see Mignogna v. Sair Aviation, Incorporated, 679 F. Supp. 184, 189 (N.D.N.Y. 1988); Soper v. Kahn, 568 F. Supp. 398, 402 (D. Md. 1983); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Aaron-Lincoln Mercury, Incorporated, 563 F. Supp. 1108, 1112-14 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
3. See City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). The Supreme Court previously treated the removal jurisdiction of the federal courts as derivative; the Court reasoned that federal courts could entertain cases removed from state courts only if the state court originally had subject-matter jurisdiction of the suit. See Lambert Run Coal Company v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 258 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Congress ended this practice in 1986 by amending 28 U.S.C. § 1441(e) to provide that the federal court to which the action is removed “is not precluded from hearing and determining any claim” in the action because the state court “did not have jurisdiction over that claim.” Thus, federal courts may now exercise removal jurisdiction in cases in which they have subject matter jurisdiction but the state courts do not.
4. Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 n.9 (1983). See Holmes Group Incorporated v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, 535 U.S. 826, 830 n.2 (2002).
5. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (affirmative preclusion defense resting on prior federal judgment is not basis for removal); Holmes Group, 535 U.S. at 831-32 (rejecting argument that counterclaim should be regarded as part of well-pleaded complaint because it would "radically expand" removal jurisdiction).
6. Caterpillar Incorporated v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). An “independent corollary” to the well-pleaded-complaint rule is the “artful pleading” doctrine, which holds that “‘a plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary federal questions.’” Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (quoting Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 22). If the federal court determines that the plaintiff has “artfully pleaded” claims in this manner, it may allow removal even though no federal question appears on the face of the complaint. Id. The artful-pleading doctrine generally allows removal in cases where federal law completely preempts state-law claims pleaded by the plaintiff. Id.
7. Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 9 (2003). See also Aetna Health Care Incorporated v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (ERISA preempts state law tort claims against ERISA-regulated health providers; defendants may therefore remove state claims).
8. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). See Lincoln Property Company v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 88 (2005); Caterpillar Incorporated v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (“complete diversity” requirement of Section 1332(a), which mandates that citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from citizenship of each defendant, applies to removal jurisdiction based on diversity); but see 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) (defendant in class action filed in state court may remove action “without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought” and removal may be accomplished without consent of all defendants).
9. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Incorporated, 456 F.3d 933, 938-42 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1207 (2007).
10. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)(A).
11. Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Incorporated, 261 F.3d 196, 207 (2d Cir. 2001); Heritage Bank v. Redcom Laboratories, Incorporated, 250 F.3d 319, 323 (5th Cir. 2001).
12. All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
13. Syngenta Crop Protection Incorporated v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002).
15. Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, 538 U.S. 691, 694 (2003). Certain state-court civil actions, such as those arising under state workers’ compensation laws or the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994, for example, expressly may not be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1445(c), (d).
16. McDowell v. Wetterau, Incorporated, 910 F. Supp. 236 (W.D. Pa. 1995) (removal allowed from state justice-of-the-peace court); but see Williams-Willis v. Carmel Financial Corporation, 139 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Miss. 2001) (removal not allowed from tribal court); DeCoteau v. Sentry Insurance Company, 915 F. Supp. 155 (D.N.D. 1996) (same).
17. See, e.g., Volkswagen de Puerto Rico Incorporated v. Puerto Rico Labor Relations Board, 454 F.2d 38, 44 (1st Cir. 1972); Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation v. Western Sky Financial LLC, Civ. No. WDQ-11-0735, 2011 WL 4894075, *4 (D. Md. Oct. 12, 2011) (applying functional test but finding that it was not met); Gottlieb v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, 388 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2005); Civil Rights Division ex rel. Joseph v. Asplundh Tree Expert Company, No. 08-60493-CIV, 2008 WL 2616154, *5 (S.D. Fla. May 15, 2008) (finding that functional view goes beyond statutory language of Section 1441 but applying functional test in absence of guidance from Eleventh Circuit); BellSouth Telecommunications v. Vortec Telecommunications, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Fla. 2002). The Seventh Circuit’s use of a functional test in Floeter v. C.W. Transport Incorporated, 597 F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1979), was questioned by the Circuit in Wirtz Corp. v. United Distillers and Vintners North America Incorporated, 224 F.3d 708, 713 (7th Cir. 2000) (stressing need to examine Floeter decision in greater detail and limiting its holding to its facts).
18. See, e.g., Porter Trust v. Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Management District No. 1, 607 F.3d 1251, 1254-55 (10th Cir. 2010); Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ex rel. Richardson v. U.S. West Communications Incorporated, 288 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 2002); Sun Buick, Incorporated v. Saab Cars USA, Incorporated, 26 F.3d 1259, 1261-67 (3rd Cir. 1994); Johnson v. Albertson's, LLC, No. 3:08CV236 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2008).
19. Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 391-92 (1998).
20. Id. at 389 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that a remand was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). If an Eleventh Amendment defense pertains to subject-matter jurisdiction, Section 1447(c) requires a remand only when the entire case is without subject-matter jurisdiction, not when jurisdiction is lacking over only one claim within the case. Id. at 391–92.
22. Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 624 (2002).
23. Id. at 617. See Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668, 673-74 (7th Cir. 2003); Bank of Lake Tahoe v. Bank of America, 318 F.3d 914, 916–19 (9th Cir. 2003) (Nevada waived Eleventh Amendment immunity from state-law claims by joining in removal to federal court). Plaintiff’s Section 1983 damages claim against the State was barred since a State was not a “person” for purposes of such a claim. Lapides, 535 U.S. at 617 (citing Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989)). The Lapides Court accordingly noted that the U.S. district court might remand the state-law tort claims against the State to state court under the supplemental jurisdiction standards referred to in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Lapides, 535 U.S. at 618, 624.
24. Since Lapides, several Courts of Appeal have extended its holding and found that states waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit over federal claims as well when they remove such claims to federal court. Lombardo v. Pennsylvania, 540 F.3d 190, 198 (3rd Cir. 2008) (state waives immunity from suit but retains immunity from liability); Meyers v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236, 240-50 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 817 (2007); Embury v. King, 361 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2004); Estes v. Wyoming Department of Transportation, 302 F.3d 1200, 1206 (10th Cir. 2002).
25. Whether removal of state-law claims over which the state had not waived sovereign immunity in state court waives such immunity seems to have divided the courts. Embury, 361 F.3d at 566 (implicitly finding a waiver); compare Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484, 490-91 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding no waiver of immunity over state claims to which it would have been immune in state court); see also Meyers, 410 F.3d at 249-50 (criticizing Stewart).
26. The statute also permits removal by any person acting under the authority of a federal officer. For an interesting recent decision interpreting this provision, see Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (holding that cigarette manufacturer could not use § 1442(a)(1) to remove claims of false advertising on the grounds that it was heavily and actively regulated by the Federal Trade Commission; statute requires delegation of power or authority). See also Isaacson v. Dow Chemical, 517 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding chemical companies that produced Agent Orange are persons acting under color of federal office); Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 3:05-CV-0450-D, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18389, 2005 WL 2074327 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2005) (airline could not use provision to remove because its collection of certain fees was not sufficiently controlled by the government).
27. 14C Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice And Procedure § 3727, at 169 (5th ed. 2008).
29. In Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999), federal judges were permitted to remove to federal court collection actions filed by the county in state court seeking payment of an occupational license fee. The judges asserted an ultimately unsuccessful federal defense on the grounds of intergovernmental tax immunity. See also Isaacson v. Dow Chemical, 517 F.3d 129, 138-40 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that the defense does not have to be an immunity defense in case involving government contract).
30. Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 139 (1989).
31. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3).
32. Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 409 (1969) (citation omitted). Such a connection was established by the federal judges in Jefferson County whose legal theory was that the county’s enforcement action was grounded upon their being engaged in the occupation of federal judges.
33. See Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 133 (1989) (federal employees prosecuted for crimes involving vehicles had no immunity defense and therefore did not act "under color of such office").
34. Wright et al., supra note 183, at 146–57.
35. Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 386 (1998) (citing College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 163–66). See also Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005) (“College of Surgeons stressed that a district court has original jurisdiction of a civil action for purposes of § 1441(a) as long as it has original jurisdiction over a subset of the claims constituting the action.”) (emphasis supplied).
36. Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 563 (citing College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 166).
37. City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)) (further citation omitted).
38. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
39. Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002).
40. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014), the Supreme Court held that a notice of removal need only plausibly state a basis for federal jurisdiction. It need not include evidence that jurisdictional requirements, such as the amount in controversy, are met.
41. Murphy Brothers v. Michetti Pipe Stringing Incorporated, 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999) (interpreting what is now 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1)).
42. Id. The “initial pleading” in the statute refers not only to the complaint but also to any pleading “contain[ing] sufficient information to enable the defendant to intelligently ascertain the basis for removal.” Whitaker v. American Telecasting Incorporated, 261 F.3d 196, 203 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Brooklyn Hospital Center v. Diversified Information Technologies Incorporated, 133 F. Supp. 2d 197, 201 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)).
43. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). See, e.g., Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corporation, 25 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1102 (1995) (plaintiffs’ reply brief, filed two years after commencement of action in state court, set forth removable federal claim which triggered 30-day removal period).
44. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B), (C).
45. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, P.L. 112-63, added provisions relating to ascertaining the amount in controversy in diversity cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).
48. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corporation, 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
49. Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988).
50. Neal v. Brown, 980 F.2d 747, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
51. Carlsbad Technology v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 638 (2009).
52. Things Remembered v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1995) (interpreting prior version of statute); Cook v. Wikler, 320 F.3d 431, 435-39 (3d Cir. 2003).
53. Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, 551 U.S. 224, 231 (2007).
54. Carlsbad Technology, 556 U.S. at 638 (although several concurring justices suggested that this area was ripe for revisiting in appropriate case).
55. Powerix Corp., 551 U.S. at 231.

References: § 1367
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1453
 v. 
 § 1441
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1651
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1447
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1367
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1442
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3727
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1442
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 v. 
 § 1367
 § 1441
 v. 
 § 1446
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1446
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1446
 v. 
 § 1446
 § 1446
 § 1446
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.