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.
38. Should the court grant the employee's motion to remand?
The corporation removed the case to the federal district court in State A, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal, the employee moved to remand back to state court.
A former employee sued a corporation, her former employer, in State A state court, alleging that she was illegally fired after bringing a workers' compensation claim. The employee is a citizen of State B and the corporation is incorporated in State C, with its principal manufacturing plant in State B, its second-largest plant in State A, and its board of directors located in State D. The employee is seeking over $75,000 in damages. Under State A's workers' compensation law, as interpreted by State A courts, this claim «arises under» State A workers' compensation law.
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
C is correct. The issue here is the removal exception for state law workers' compensation claims. Because the former employee brought a workers' compensation claim in State A, where the case was filed, the case was nonremovable even though diversity jurisdiction existed. Thus, the court should grant the motion to remand.
A is incorrect. Whether diversity jurisdiction exists is not dispositive here. The employee brought the claim in State A and it arises under State A's workers' compensation law, which means the existence of diversity jurisdiction has no consequence on the court's decision to grant the motion to remand. Removal was inappropriate and the court should grant the employee's motion to remand.
B is incorrect. This is an incorrect application of the law to these facts. A party may move to remand anytime up to 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal. The employee filed her motion to remand within 30 days after the corporation's removal of the case to federal court. Thus, the motion was not untimely.
D is incorrect. As stated above, the existence of diversity jurisdiction is not dispositive here. However, this answer choice is also an incorrect application of the law. The case does satisfy diversity of citizenship, even though that has no effect on the outcome of the employee's motion. The employee is a citizen of State B, and the corporation's citizenship exists in State C (place of incorporation) and State D (principal place of business, where its Board of Directors operates). The employee is seeking more than $75,000 in damages, satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. Although diversity exists, again, the removal was improper and the court should grant the motion to remand.