Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 332: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 163: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
NGE On Demand: The (Dilatory) Forum Defendant Rule and Snap Removal with Nick Graber
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 292: Listen and Learn -- The Erie Doctrine (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 126: Listen and Learn -- The Erie Doctrine
To exercise valid jurisdiction over any claim, a federal court must have both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction can be based on diversity of citizenship, the presence of a...more
The Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial captured the world’s attention in 2022. Two years after the couple divorced, Heard described surviving domestic violence in an op-ed for The Washington Post. Although Heard never mentioned...more
Jurisdiction always matters. Of course, litigants and the courts tend to focus on the merits. After all, the merits, not rote jurisdictional analyses, are what a lawsuit is all about. But parties cannot ignore basic...more
A proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, which had previously required information so judges could determine if they had a conflict of interest, would require a party in a diversity action to name and...more
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many states enacted, by executive order or otherwise, rules that have created both legal and procedural hurdles to a lender's ability to exercise its contractual rights, including the...more
The common train of thought when litigating as an out-of-state defendant is that it is best to be venued in federal court so as to eliminate any advantage an in-state plaintiff might have with a local jury. Typically, foreign...more
A defendant can utilize 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to remove a state court case to federal court where complete diversity of citizenship exists. But the statute includes restrictions that limit a defendant’s ability to remove a case to...more
Formalism matters in federal court. One cannot obtain access to the courtroom without presenting the jurisdictional key to the courtroom door. A fundamental principle of subject matter jurisdiction is that parties asserting...more
Recently, I was speaking with a client, and we were discussing some of the unique issues subrogation professionals face on a regular basis....more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently determined that, for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, the citizenship of a traditional trust is only that of its trustees, while the...more
When deciding whether to remove a case when an LLC is a party it is necessary to look at the citizenship of the LLC’s members to determine whether there is diversity for subject matter jurisdiction. However, citizenship of...more
If a putative class of plaintiffs, all citizens of State A, sues a corporate defendant, which the law considers to be a citizen of State A and State B, in state court, may the defendant remove the case to federal court under...more
The Sixth Circuit became the third court of appeals to reject the “alternative citizenship” theory of diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In Roberts v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., a putative class of Tennessee...more
The Southern District of New York has confirmed that when the trustee of a non-citizen aircraft trust brings suit in its own name, the citizenship of that trustee may be used to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal...more
On March 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) ruled that the citizenship of a Real Estate Investment Entity (“REIT”), for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, is based on the citizenship of its...more
Imagine opening your email one morning to find a copy of a complaint and summons just received by your out-of-state corporate client. The caption shows a familiar North Carolina company as the lone plaintiff, and a cursory...more
In Americold Realty Tr. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016), the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a Maryland real estate investment trust (formed pursuant...more
The Supreme Court’s most recent citizenship opinion, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., could make removing or keeping a case in federal court based on diversity more difficult for a statutory trust with a...more
In a unanimous March 7, 2016 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., et al., , the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an oft-confused holding relating to diversity jurisdiction: the...more
In Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. (No. 14-1382, decided 3/7/16), the Supreme Court of the United States applied its “oft-repeated rule” regarding the citizenship of unincorporated entities to a Maryland...more
Business trusts, statutory trusts and non-corporate real-estate investment trusts now face a significant jurisdictional barrier that will reduce their access to the federal courts, following a March 7 ruling by the U.S....more
On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382, holding that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a “real estate investment trust” established...more
Texas hail claim policyholder lawyers, like many plaintiffs’ lawyers, clearly prefer to be in state court rather than federal court. To accomplish this and prevent the defendant insurer from properly removing the lawsuit to...more