Opinion ID: 781209
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Removal Statutes

Text: 82 We next consider EIEG's argument that the FSIA, unlike some other federal statutes, does not explicitly grant a right of removal to foreign states after a transfer of a party's interest during the pendency of litigation. Citing the familiar canon of statutory construction that we should give effect to such a distinction, Gov't of Guam, ex rel. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth. v. United States, 179 F.3d 630, 638 (9th Cir.1999), EIEG argues that Congress' silence on the matter in the FSIA displays Congress' intent not to provide foreign states with a right of post-joinder removal to federal court. 83 EIEG points specifically to two provisions of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. The first provision permits the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to remove an action to federal court after becoming a party: 84 The [RTC] ... may remove any action, suit, or proceeding from a State court to the United States district court.... The removal of any such suit or proceeding shall be instituted — 85 (i) not later than 90 days after the date the Corporation is substituted as a party, or 86 (ii) not later than 30 days after service on the Corporation, if the Corporation is named as a party in any capacity and if such suit is filed after August 9, 1989. 87 12 U.S.C. § 1441a( l )(3)(A). 88 The other provision that EIEG cites pertains to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and allows the FDIC to remove after it has been substituted as a party: 89 [T]he Corporation may, without bond or security, remove any action, suit, or proceeding from a State court to the appropriate United States district court before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date the action, suit, or proceeding is filed against the Corporation or the Corporation is substituted as a party. 90 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(B). 91 EIEG reads too much into those statutes. Those statutes allow the RTC and the FDIC, respectively, to remove any state-court action to federal district court. The references to the RTC's and the FDIC's substitution as a party appear only as part of the timeliness calculation. The substantive grant of the right to remove is contained in the first portion of each statute, which sets out that the corporation may remove any state-court action; the later reference to substitution only clarifies when the corporation may remove after joining. Indeed, the later reference to time restrictions on the removal right of a substituted corporation would be nonsensical if the earlier portion of the statute, granting the right to remove, did not encompass the right to remove after substitution. 92 Similarly, the FSIA allows a foreign state to remove any action brought against it in a state court. Instead of measuring the timeliness of a foreign state's removal by reference to the date on which the foreign state was named as a party, or became a party by substitution or joinder, Congress referred back to the usual time limitations of section 1446(b) and said that those time limits may be enlarged at any time for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) (emphasis added). If the time limits may be enlarged at any time, they may be enlarged after the foreign state has become a party by substitution or joinder so long as the district court concludes that the foreign state has showed good cause for the failure to meet the baseline time requirements of § 1446(b).