|
In the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. This is a general exception to the usual American rule giving the plaintiff the right to make the decision on the proper forum. Removal occurs when a defendant files a "notice of removal" in the state court where the lawsuit is filed and the federal court to which the defendant would like to remove the case. Removal is governed by statute, ''et seq''. With rare exceptions, a case may be removed only if, at the time of the initial filing, the case could have been filed in federal court. Removal requires an independent ground for subject-matter jurisdiction such as diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. A case must be removed to the federal district court that encompasses the state court where the action was initiated. Once removed, the case can be transferred to, or consolidated in, another federal court, despite the plaintiff's original intended venue. Ordinarily, defendants face no difficulty removing claims based on federal law if every defendant desires removal (the unanimity rule). Removal of claims under state law, even when a federal court indisputably has diversity jurisdiction, is more restricted. Except in certain class actions governed by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), a plaintiff can successfully object to removal in diversity actions if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state where the suit is taking place.〔28 U.S.C. §§1441(b), 1453.〕 ==Removal and complete diversity== When there are multiple defendants in a case, if even just one is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed, a plaintiff can successfully object to removal if the only basis for federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.〔''Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis'', .〕 The reason for the rule is that diversity jurisdiction was created by the Founding Fathers of the United States in the Constitution to shield defendants from possible discrimination in a foreign forum (i.e., a state not their home state).〔Federalist No. 80〕 When an in-state defendant is being sued in a state court, it is expected that he will not be subject to unfair prejudice. With the exception of class actions under CAFA, every defendant must agree to remove; otherwise, the plaintiff or non-removing defendants can request remand for failure to satisfy the "rule of unanimity." Notably, there is a circuit split (and several intracircuit splits) over whether every defendant ''named'' in the complaint must join in the removal notice, or whether the rule of unanimity applies only to those defendants who have been properly served as of the date of removal. The reason this is important is that sometimes a plaintiff may not be able to (or may deliberately choose not to) formally serve ''all'' defendants on the same day, or some defendants may become aware of the existence of the complaint before it is formally served (for example, if other already-served defendants send them a "courtesy copy"). In courts that adhere to the latter rule, removal jurisdiction may be proper as long as defendants can show that all defendants who were properly served by the date of removal joined in the removal notice, even though not all named defendants joined in the notice.〔''Destfino v. Reiswig'', 630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011).〕 A plaintiff may never remove its own case, even if the defendant files counterclaims alleging violations of federal law by the plaintiff. A plaintiff must seek a dismissal without prejudice and refile in federal court. There exists a small set of cases (e.g., workers' compensation actions and actions under the Federal Employers Liability Act) that are barred from removal under all circumstances. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「removal jurisdiction」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|