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.
39. Should the court grant the park ranger's motion to remand?
On April 17, 2021, the researcher filed a timely notice of removal with the proper federal district court. Immediately thereafter, the scout filed his own notice of removal. Two weeks after April 17, 2021, the rancher then filed with the court a letter stating his consent to the removal of the case. The park ranger then moved for remand to state court.
A park ranger filed suit in state court against a scout, a rancher, and a researcher, asserting claims under federal law. The scout was properly served with the summons and complaint on February 1, 2021. The rancher was properly served with the summons and complaint on March 5, 2021. The researcher was properly served with the summons and complaint on April 7, 2021.
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
Generally, any action brought in a state court where the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant to federal court.
In addition to subject-matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant (s) received adequate notice of the cause of action. Adequate notice requires that the procedures were reasonably likely to inform the defendant (s) of the action, even if they actually failed to do so. The defendant (s) must also receive adequate time to prepare a defense and an opportunity to present that defense, both of which are measured by due process.
A is correct. The court should deny the park ranger's motion to remand because the defendants followed proper removal procedure and subject-matter jurisdiction exists. As to removal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, notice of removal is valid within 30 days of service of the complaint on the defendant. If multiple defendants are served at different times and a later-served defendant initiates removal, the earlier-served defendants may join in the removal, even if their original 30-day window has closed. Here, all defendants consented to removal (by joining) within 30 days of the notice of removal initiated by the researcher. As to subject-matter jurisdiction, the case arises under federal law, so the court has federal question jurisdiction.
B is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. The researcher's timely notice of removal immediately after being served with summons and the complaint, alone, was insufficient to satisfy removal procedures. The consent of all defendants is necessary, and the earlier-served defendants' joining of the researcher's removal is the basis for proper removal here.
C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. There is no rule that requires multiple defendants under one claim to simultaneously join in a single, timely, notice of removal. Multiple defendants may remove and consent to removal at different times, as long as they all do so in a timely fashion. Here, after the researcher filed a timely notice of removal, the other defendants signified their consent within 30 days of service upon the researcher, satisfying removal procedure.
D is incorrect. Courts accept any written signification of consent to removal filed by a defendant. The rancher's separate letter of consent was sufficient to give consent to the researcher's timely removal.