Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
17. Is removal proper?
The motorcyclist filed a notice of removal in the federal court for the Eastern District of State A, which geographically embraces the location of where the action was originally filed.
A pedestrian from State A sued a motorcyclist from State B. The pedestrian properly filed suit in a state court located in the Eastern District of State A and sought $100,000 in damages for the tortious injuries caused by the motorcyclist's allegedly negligent acts in the Western District of State A.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Under § 1441(b), a diversity action will only be removable if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. Because removability is based on the existence of original federal jurisdiction, the usual principles governing the existence of diversity jurisdiction apply.
B is correct. The issue in this question is the proper venue for removal. To properly hear an action, a federal court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction, and be a proper venue for the case. Because this suit was originally filed in the state court located in the Eastern District of State A, the motorcyclist's removal to Eastern District of State A is proper.
A is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. Although diversity among the parties supports a finding of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, this statement does not support a finding of proper removal. The call requires a determination of whether the motorcyclist selected the appropriate venue for removal, as explained above.
C is incorrect. This choice implies that removal is automatically improper if the defendant (here, the motorcyclist) does not live in the state embracing the federal court, which is incorrect. Venue may be proper in multiple federal districts, and the defendant's citizenship is not always dispositive.
D is incorrect. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) generally allows for venue to be proper in a federal court where the events occurred, this rule is not dispositive here, where the issue is proper venue in a removal action. The original case was filed in state court, not federal court, so § 1391 does not apply.