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.
34. Should the court grant the ballerina's motion to remand?
The manufacturer also filed a timely notice of removal with the local federal district court. The ballerina then moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
In state court, a ballerina sued a non-diverse manufacturer of an over-the-counter drug that the ballerina ingested as directed on the packaging. The ballerina claimed she suffered serious vision impairment because of the drug. The ballerina asserted two state law claims: (i) products liability; and (ii) improper labeling of the drug. In its defense, the manufacturer asserted that it complied with federal law requirements regarding drug labeling.
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
Jurisdiction based on a federal question must stem from the U.S. Constitution, an act of Congress, or a federal treaty. The federal question basis must appear in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. The plaintiff may not establish federal question jurisdiction by stating anticipated federal issues that might arise in a defense. The defendant's answer and/or defense (s) are therefore irrelevant to establishing a federal question. If there is no federal question in the claim, it must be a diversity case for the federal court to have subject-matter jurisdiction.
If an action brought in state court also falls under the original jurisdiction of a federal court, it may be removed by the defendant to the proper district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) gives the exclusive ability to defendants to remove such an action that could have originally been brought by the plaintiff in federal court.
A plaintiff may file a motion to remand a case back to the state court. And, if the plaintiff shows that no federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists, the federal court must remand back to state court.
C is correct. The federal court should grant the ballerina's motion to remand because it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that the original complaint contain the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, including either the federal question or basis for diversity. Subject-matter jurisdiction may not be established based on the anticipation or assertion of a federal defense.
Here, the ballerina's claim is based in state law products liability and labeling requirements, and the manufacturer-defendant is non-diverse. Without either a cause of action based on a federal question or diversity between the parties, the federal court does not have jurisdiction. The fact that the manufacturer asserted a defense based on federal labeling law is irrelevant. As such, removal would be improper and the case should be remanded back to state court for adjudication.
A is incorrect. This choice contains a misstatement of the law by implying that a defense may establish federal question jurisdiction. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires the original complaint to state the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Neither an anticipated nor presented defense may be the basis for establishing a federal question.
B is incorrect. This choice also contains a misstatement of the law by implying that subject-matter jurisdiction may be based on federal claims available to a plaintiff, even if not asserted in the original complaint. However, subject-matter jurisdiction is not established based on claims that could have been brought under federal law, but rather, only claims that were, in fact, brought. Nor will a court grant removal based on claims that could have been brought. Here, it is irrelevant whether the ballerina could have asserted a claim arising under federal law against the manufacturer. She did not plead any federal claims, and therefore, subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist.
D is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. The court should grant the motion to remand because it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, not because the ballerina, the party against whom the federal issue is asserted, prefers to litigate in state court. The preference of the party who faces the federal issue is not relevant to this analysis. As explained above, the motion to remand must be granted because there is no federal question or diversity jurisdiction authorizing the court to retain the case.