A federal trial court in
Two weeks after
Departing from the conclusion previously reached by the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the trial court found that the forum defendant rule is ambiguous because one interpretation would permit snap removal and one would not. The Court's reasoning included the following: “The rule is silent as to when a forum defendant must be properly joined and served to defeat removal. It does not plainly state that a forum defendant may remove a case before any parties are served, although that is one plausible reading of the text. Further, it is plausible to read the forum-defendant rule's clause regarding 'any defendant' as requiring that at least one defendant be properly joined and served prior to removal on diversity grounds . . . .”
After finding the statute ambiguous, the Court chose the interpretation that it found to be more consistent with the intent of
In addition, the trial court stated that it found the decisions of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits unpersuasive primarily because they narrowly focus on a short clause within the forum defendant rule—“properly joined and served”—without fully considering the rule's purpose.
Watch for more developments in this area. Courts around the country continue to disagree on the application of the forum defendant rule under procedural circumstances such as those presented here. It remains to be seen whether any federal court of appeal will follow the reasoning of the trial court in this case, or whether
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Suite 3600
PA 19103-7286
Tel: 2157512000
Fax: 2157512205
E-mail: contactus@schnader.com
URL: www.schnader.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source