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.
40. Should the court grant the janitor's motion to remand?
The parties participated in discovery for over a year, at which point the mechanic received timely answers to interrogatories that, for the first time, expressly indicated that the janitor sought $1 million in damages. The mechanic promptly filed a notice of removal with the federal district court, citing that the janitor's interrogatory answer that referenced $1 million in damages. The janitor moved to remand the action.
State X's rules prohibit personal injury plaintiffs from alleging the damages amount in their complaints. A janitor from State X sued a mechanic from State A for negligence in a State X court. In his complaint, the janitor alleged that, due to the mechanic's negligence, he suffered multiple broken bones that required extensive surgeries and sustained brain damage. The janitor sought compensation for those injuries for pain and suffering and reimbursement of medical expenses.
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
A defendant must file a notice of removal in federal court within 30 days after service. In diversity cases, defendants may not remove more than one year after the state action commenced UNLESS the plaintiff somehow acted in bad faith to prevent the defendant from removing the case.
B is correct. The janitor (from State X) filed a negligence action in a state court in State X against the mechanic, an out-of-state defendant from State A. When the mechanic removed the case to federal court, it rested solely on diversity because no federal question existed. A defendant in a diversity case has one year after the action's commencement to remove to federal court. Here, over a year had passed as the parties participated in discovery. Although State X's rules prohibited the janitor from initially pleading the damages amount, the facts do not indicate that the janitor acted in bad faith to prevent the mechanic from removing the case (e.g., no evidence of concealing the damages amount). Thus, the court should remand to state court because removal was untimely.
A is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion with the incorrect legal reasoning. The court should grant the motion to remand, but not because the mechanic failed to prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. The problem is that the mechanic filed the notice of removal too late, more than a year after the action commenced.
C is incorrect. This answer choice implies that the janitor acted in bad faith by deliberately failing to disclose the amount in controversy to prevent removal. However, State X's rules prevented the janitor from including the damages sought in the original complaint. At any point after the janitor filed the complaint, the mechanic could have ascertained the amount in controversy, and no facts indicate that the janitor prevented the mechanic from doing so. The mechanic could have posed interrogatories to the janitor sooner, the answers to which would have disclosed how much the janitor was seeking.
D is incorrect. The mechanic had one year from the commencement of the action to remove the case to federal court, absent a showing of the janitor's bad faith. Without any facts to show that the janitor tried to prevent the mechanic from discovering the damages amount, the mechanic's removal was too late, even though he filed promptly after ascertaining the damages amount. At any point during the one-year period, the mechanic could have used the extent of the janitor's injuries, described in the complaint, to determine the amount in controversy.