Who are the decision makers at INTERPOL's CCF?
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 332: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
What if the CCF denies my request for the removal of my Red Notice?
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 163: Listen and Learn -- Removal (Civ Pro)
CF on Cyber: An Update on the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA)
NGE On Demand: The (Dilatory) Forum Defendant Rule and Snap Removal with Nick Graber
On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, holding that the detention of a noncitizen ordered removed from the United States who reenters without authorization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231....more
On May 17, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-1 decision in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 2021 DJDAR 4717, that may give fossil fuel companies the upper hand in the slew of recent climate change cases filed...more
In a 7-1 ruling in BP PLC et al v Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (19-1189), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did not fully analyze whether a climate change tort...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-1 opinion in BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Case No. 19-1189, ruling that the Fourth Circuit erred in failing to consider all jurisdictional arguments from defendants BP and...more
In a decision with important implications for climate change tort cases, the US Supreme Court held that federal courts of appeal can consider all potential grounds for federal jurisdiction in certain appeals of district court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in its review of a remand order that would have kept Baltimore's climate change suit in state court. On May 17, 2021, in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP...more
On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court held in BP P.L.C., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore that when a remand order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the court of appeals may review the entire remand order,...more
A noncitizen applying for relief from deportation bears the burden of proving all elements of eligibility for relief, including that a conviction under a divisible state statute does not render the person ineligible for...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following two decisions: United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., No. 19-547: The Sierra Club submitted Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)...more
The removal of a state court action to federal court is often conceptualized in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, where, but for the plaintiff’s choice of venue, the matter could have been filed in federal court pursuant to...more
Liu v. Securities And Exchange Commission, Case No. 18–1501 (2020). Equitable relief, including disgorgement, is permissible under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., so long as it does not exceed a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down three rulings potentially impacting bankruptcy cases. Nunc Pro Tunc Relief - In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, No. 18-921, 2020 WL 871715 (U.S....more
Ruling suggests a new means of stemming the flood tide of state-court Securities Act claims that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cyan decision in 2018. But uncertainty lingers as to whether post-IPO public companies can...more
On February 24, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a case Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano in connection with removal of a state court matter to Federal court, something that may have a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano, No. 18-921, 2020 WL 871715, at * (U.S. Feb. 24, 2020) in a per curiam opinion that turned on a state court’s jurisdiction...more
Several securities litigation trends over recent years show no signs of abating in 2020. Federal securities class action filings seem likely to remain at elevated levels. Last year, for the third consecutive year, more than...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following cases: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267; St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348: Whether the First Amendment’s...more
A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more
On May 28, 2019, a divided Supreme Court held in a 5–4 opinion that third-party counterclaim defendants cannot remove putative class actions to federal court under the general federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, or the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
From the class action defense perspective, companies and counsel alike are almost always looking for an angle to move a state-filed putative class action to the more rigorous environment of the federal courts. Congress...more
In Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 (May 28, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions have authority under the general removal...more
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that third-party defendants in state court actions cannot remove...more
To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal...more