News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Remand › Removal

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Amending Away Federal Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Holds That Federal Jurisdiction Can Be Divested by Amendment

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Federal courts can adjudicate state-law claims arising out of the same facts as federal-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but what happens if, after removal, the plaintiff amends her complaint to remove the federal questions...more

Carr Maloney P.C.

Supreme Court Announces Bright Line Rule in Determining Federal Courts’ Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Carr Maloney P.C. on

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al. v. Wullschleger et al., upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision, holding that when a plaintiff amends their complaint and deletes...more

McGlinchey Stafford

SCOTUS: Case Removed on Federal Question Grounds Must Be Remanded if Federal Claim Is Dismissed

McGlinchey Stafford on

In a seminal opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that a case removed on federal question grounds is properly remanded when the plaintiff amends his or her complaint and dismisses the federal claims. What is the...more

Downey Brand LLP

Ruling may give oil companies upper hand in climate change cases

Downey Brand LLP on

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

Bennett Jones LLP

Win for American Energy Companies Facing Climate Change Litigation

Bennett Jones LLP on

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

Cozen O'Connor

Supreme Court Sides With Energy Companies On Technical Grounds In Climate Liability Case

Cozen O'Connor on

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

Morgan Lewis

US Supreme Court Allows Oil and Gas Companies to Appeal Jurisdictional Issues in Baltimore Climate Suit

Morgan Lewis on

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

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Procedural Win to Corporate Defendants in Climate Change Litigation

Jones Day on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides BP P.L.C., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Butler Snow LLP

Supreme Court’s Grant of Certiorari Could Signal Change in Scope of Review for Remand Orders to State Courts

Butler Snow LLP on

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

Jones Day

From the Top in Brief - June 2020

Jones Day on

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

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Nunc Pro Tunc Anyone?

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

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

Burr & Forman

Did the Supreme Court Really Ban Nunc Pro Tunc Orders?

Burr & Forman on

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

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Limited Authority to Remove Class Actions to Original Defendants, Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

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

K&L Gates LLP

“Any Defendant” Does Not Really Mean “Any Defendant”

K&L Gates LLP on

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

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Said “No” to Class Arbitration in Employment-Related Data Breach Dispute Because Arbitration Agreement...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Facing a Class Action Complaint as a Third-Party Defendant? Time to Get Comfortable in State Court

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

The Supreme Court Rules on Class Action Removal Limits for Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

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

BakerHostetler

When a Third-Party Defendant is Not a Defendant – Supreme Court Reinforces Removal Loophole

BakerHostetler on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

“Any” Doesn’t Mean “All”: In Home Depot, SCOTUS Says “Any Defendant” Doesn’t Include Third-party Defendants Facing Class Claims

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

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

A&O Shearman

Supreme Court Holds That Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not Remove An Action Based On The General Removal Statute Or CAFA

A&O Shearman on

On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas that a third-party counterclaim defendant was not permitted to remove class action claims against it under the general removal statute, 28...more

McGuireWoods LLP

Third-Party Removal Under CAFA

McGuireWoods LLP on

On Tuesday May 28, 2019, the United State Supreme Court declined to afford state court third-party, class action defendants the ability to remove a class action to federal court. See Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson,...more

Proskauer - Advertising Law

Supreme Court Limits Removal of Class-Action Counterclaims

Proskauer - Advertising Law on

On May 28, the Supreme Court decided Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson, 17-1471 (2019), ruling 5–4 that third-party counterclaim defendants may not remove class actions from state to federal court. The decision, besides keeping in...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court: Third-Party Defendants Cannot Remove to Federal Court

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

It has long been established that a state-court plaintiff who is the subject of a counterclaim cannot remove the case to federal court. ...more

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Declines to Remove Loophole in CAFA

Carlton Fields on

On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas ­­— joined by unlikely allies Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — wrote the 5-4 majority opinion holding that third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions do not...more

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide