47. Was removal proper?

C is correct. An action is removable if it could originally have been filed in federal court. Here, the amended complaint contained a claim that qualified for federal-question jurisdiction. Although there was also diversity jurisdiction, removal was not barred by the forum-defendant rule, which provides that a suit that is removable solely on the basis of diversity may not be removed if any of the parties in interest, properly joined and served, is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought. That rule bars removal only when diversity is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, unlike in this case.

A is incorrect. The forum-defendant rule only operates to bar removal when diversity is the only claimed basis for federal jurisdiction. Here, the plaintiff also asserted a claim under federal law so federal-question jurisdiction was applicable.

B is incorrect. When defendants are served at different times, each defendant gets 30 days to remove from the time of service. The defendant who removed the case did so within 25 days after being served with the amended complaint. The removal statutes permit an earlier-served defendant to consent to removal by a later-served defendant even when the earlier-served defendant had failed to timely remove.

D is incorrect. Although the parties met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction in this case, the presence of a defendant from the forum state could potentially have prevented removal because the forum-defendant rule applies when federal jurisdiction is based solely on diversity. However, the federal law claim here meant that subject-matter jurisdiction was based on more than just diversity.