Case Removed to Federal Court Sent Back to State Court

In the case of Mason v. Sams Club, No. 2:25-CV-05038-JHS (E.D. Pa. April 27, 2026 Slomsky, J.), the federal court remanded a slip and fall case back to state court after finding that the Defendant had prematurely removed the case to federal court.

The court noted that, under federal law, a Defendant may only remove a case when the Defendant receives a document that puts the Defendant on notice that the case is removal because the $75,000.00 jurisdiction threshold is met. Moreover, under the Rules, once the Defendant receives a document that puts the Defendant on notice that the case is removable, a case must be removed within thirty (30) days of receiving that document.

Here, the Defendant removed the case after receiving emails from the Plaintiff’s counsel that the Plaintiff was going to undergo wrist surgery as a result of the injuries.

The Plaintiff argued that the case should be remanded back to state court, claiming that the Notice of Removal was filed prematurely because the Defendant did not have notice that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00.

The court agreed, finding that the Defendant did not provide sufficiently specific information to confirm to the court that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00. Here, there was a lack of any information regarding costs, total damages, or a settlement demand, any of which could have put the Defendant on notice that the jurisdictional threshold have been met.

The court noted that, with the Defendants bearing the burden of proving that the removal was proper, the Defendant’s failure to explain how a wrist surgery alone would necessarily surpass the jurisdictional threshold left to much ambiguity.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


Source: Article – “Sams Club Slip-In-Fall Slides Back To State Court Due To Premature Removal Notice,” By Riley Brennnan of The Legal Intelligencer (May 4, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Jim Wilson on www.unsplash.com.

Federal Court Rejects Plaintiff's Request to Remand UIM Breach of Contract/Bad Faith Claim Back to State Court

In the case of Victoria-Melo v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. Of America, No. 5:25-CV-07282-JMG (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2026 Gallagher, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a UIM/Bad Faith suit back to state court.

The insurance company had removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00.

The Plaintiff responded by asserting that the Defendants had failed to establish the amount in controversy. The Plaintiffs also argued that the action presented unsettled issues of Pennsylvania insurance law that would be better resolved by the state courts.

After reviewing the matter before it, the court concluded that diversity jurisdiction existed and that abstention was not warranted.

In so ruling on the issue of whether the exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the federal court considered the factors set forth by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Reifer case. 

As part of this analysis, the court found that this case did not present the type of unsettled or novel issues of state law that would weigh in favor of abstention. 

One issue in this regard in this case is that the Plaintiff contended that the applicability of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to an insurance policy issued outside of Pennsylvania presented as an unresolved legal question. 

The court disagreed and pointed to Pennsylvania cases that had addressed the issue previously. As such, this case was found to involve the routine application of established statutory language and insurance principles to the case at hand.

As such, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Candace M. Edgar of the Camp Hill, PA office of Marshall Dennehey for bringing this case to my attention.

Third Circuit Addresses Strict Liability Claims in Alleged Food Poisoning Case

In its unpublished decision in the case of Kovalev v. Lidl US, LLC, No. 24-3224 (3rd Cir. Nov. 12, 2025 Hardiman, J., Matey, J., Chung, J.) (per curiam) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment and other motions after finding that the thirty (30) day removal to federal court deadline begins when the Defendant learns that the case is indeed removable.

According to the record before this court, the Plaintiff had made a demand in excess of the diversity jurisdictional amount.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff claimed food poisoning from eating bread from a loaf of bread he had purchased.   

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged defective condition existed at the time of the sale, thereby precluding any strict liability claims. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the allegation that the alleged defect caused his claimed injuries.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Addresses When Time Begins To Run To Determine if Removal To Federal Court Was Filed Too Late

In the case of Baucom v. Vidal, No. 2:24-CV-01818-JFM (E.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2024 Murphy, J.), the court addressed a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a motor vehicle accident case from federal court back down to state court. 

The court noted that the issue before it was when the Defendant’s thirty (30) day time period to remove a case to federal court begins to run.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia and alleged that the damages claimed were in excess of $50,000.00.

At some point in time after the statutory thirty (30) day removal clock had expired, the Plaintiffs made it known that they were actually seeking more than $350,000.00, that is, an amount more than enough to satisfy the $75,000 amount necessary to support diversity jurisdiction.

At that point in time, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to the federal court. The Plaintiff then moved to remand the case back to state court, saying that the removal was too late.

The court noted that the questions before it was whether the original Complaint filed in the state court put the Defendants on notice that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00.

Judge Murphy noted that the answer to this question is straightforward under the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ bright-line test.  Under the appropriate standard of review, the court noted that, if an initial pleading does not give the Defendant notice of the right to remove the case to federal court, the Defendants shall file a Notice of Removal within thirty (30) days after receipt, by the Defendant, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may be first ascertained that the case is one which is or has indeed become removable. In this regard, the court cited to the Third Circuit’s decision in McLaren v. UPS Store, Inc., 32 F.4th 232 (3d Cir. 2022).

This federal district court noted that the Defendants were not on notice that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 until the Plaintiffs made their $350,000.00 settlement demand. As such, the court found that the Defendant’s removal was timely. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert.” www.Law.com (Jan. 2025).

Court Rejects Defense Contention that Bad Faith Conduct on Part of Plaintiff Prevented a Timely Removal to Federal Court

In the case of Gainer v. Bordertown Transp., Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01296-KNS (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2024 Scott, J.), the Federal Eastern District Court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion for a Remand of a personal injury litigation to state court where the federal court found that the Plaintiff’s litigation conduct while the case was at the state court trial level, which case handling ended up with the removal request being facially untimely, did not evidence bad faith on the part of the Plaintiff.

According to the Opinion, the case involved a Plaintiff who was injured while she was standing behind the wheel of a truck that was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant tortfeasor and also sued PennDOT.

However, after over a year of discovery and pre-trial litigation that resulted in the dismissal of PennDOT from the action, the remaining Defendants then removed the case to federal court.

The Plaintiff then filed the present Motion for Remand. The Defendants opposed the motion on the grounds that the Plaintiff had acted in bad faith to prevent the removal in the first place.

According to the Opinion, there is a dearth of case law in the Third Circuit regarding the definition of bad faith in this context.

The court noted that bad faith under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(1) means “intentional conduct on behalf of the Plaintiff which denies the Defendant the opportunity to remove the case to federal court.”  The court noted that bad faith can be demonstrated through circumstantial evidence.
The court also noted that, when completing the analysis of allegations of bad faith in this case, a court must look at all available evidence to determine whether the Plaintiff engaged in intentional conduct to deny the Defendant the chance for removal. 

In this case, the Defendants were alleging that, although PennDOT was in the case in the state court matter, the Plaintiff did not move forward in terms of any efforts to enter a default judgment against PennDOT, move to strike PennDOT’s untimely Answer to the Complaint, or otherwise move to compel PennDOT to comply with discovery requests. The defense also noted that the Plaintiff dismissed PennDOT from the suit a little over two months after the expiration of the one year removal deadline. The defense additionally indicated that the Plaintiff made no effort to settle with PennDOT before dismissing PennDOT from the case and did not otherwise have the Plaintiff’s expert witness attempt to establish liability against PennDOT in any expert report.

The Plaintiff responded by indicating that many of the decisions relative to the Plaintiff’s litigation conduct were based on practice customs in the Philadelphia County Court, were based upon strategy, and were not based on any motivation to thwart the Defendants’ removal rights. The Plaintiff contended that motions for a default judgment, or to strike an untimely answer to a Complaint or to compel discovery would not have functionally improved the Plaintiff’s position in the litigation because Plaintiff’s counsel had allegedly never seen any of these types of motions successfully granted in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

The Plaintiffs also noted that they chose not to dismiss PennDOT from the suit previously, jointly with the Defendants, because the Plaintiffs felt that the individual tortfeasor Defendants bore the vast majority of the liability. Moreover, the Plaintiffs had a strategy of attempting to gut the Defendants’ likely joint tortfeasor arguments at trial.

The Plaintiffs also noted that they waited until the date they did to dismiss PennDOT from the suit because they were waiting to fully assess the Defendants’ expert report, which report was dated three days after the one year removal deadline expired. The Plaintiff noted that it was determined within the Plaintiff’s strategy that it would be best to remove PennDOT from the case to instead focus the liability arguments against the individual Defendants, particularly where the Defendants remaining in the case had already admitted liability but PennDOT did not. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel noted that it would be an easier, cleaner, and cheaper trial without PennDOT because the Plaintiff would not have to establish PennDOT’s liability at any trial if PennDOT was dismissed from the case.

With regard to the argument that the Plaintiff did not try to seek out settlement with PennDOT prior to dismissing PennDOT, Plaintiff’s counsel explained to the court that there were settlement conversations with PennDOT but that they were not successful.

Based upon the above, as well as additional factors noted in the Opinion, the court held that the individual Defendants in this case had not met their heavy burden of demonstrating bad faith on the part of the Plaintiff. Rather, the Plaintiff was found to have offered plausible strategic arguments in explanations of the Plaintiff’s strategic decisions. Accordingly, the court did not find that the Plaintiff engaged in any intentional conduct to deny the Defendants the opportunity to move the case to federal court.

While the court noted, in this case, that the issue of whether Plaintiff’s counsel’s strategic decisions were the best course of action was irrelevant to the court’s consideration, the court did also note that, in other cases, the court is permitted to call into question the sincerity of the Plaintiff’s “strategic decisions” and to make a finding of bad faith. However, such was not the case in this matter.

In the end, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order in this case can be viewed HERE.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Jan. 2, 2025).

Federal Court Case Remanded to State Court Based on Untimeliness of the Removal

In the case of Calpin v. The ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 3:2023-CV-1418-JKM (M.D.Pa. Feb. 20, 2024, Munley, J.), the Court remanded the case back to the state court after finding that the defendant’s notice of removal was procedurally defective in that it was untimely.

According to the opinion, this matter arose out of the alleged termination of the plaintiff’s employment while he pursued worker’s compensation benefits.

The plaintiff originally filed suit in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. Nearly ten months after the filing of the plaintiff’s Complaint, the defendant removed the matter to federal court.

In the matter before the Court on the motion to remand, the defendant asserted that the removal was timely based upon when information was obtained during discovery regarding the amount in controversy. As noted, the plaintiff argued that the defendant removed the matter in an untimely manner.

Judge Julia K. Munley
M.D. Pa.

Judge Julia K. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania generally noted that a notice of removal must be filed within thirty days after service of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the action is based. Here, there was no dispute that the defendant filed its notice of removal beyond the thirty day period.

While the Court noted that, under certain circumstances, a defendant may file a notice of removal more than thirty days after the receipt of the initial pleading, here, the Court rejected the defendant’s contention that they did not know that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 until information was secured from the plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories.

The plaintiff asserted that the state court Complaint placed the defendant on notice that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The Court agreed. The Court noted that the plaintiff’s Complaint detailed the underlying economic damages claims and also asserted a punitive damages claim. The Court found that the amounts regarding the plaintiff’s alleged ongoing wage loss claim could be readily calculated and evaluated by the defendant based upon the information provided.

The Court additionally noted that, on the basis of the plaintiff’s alleged punitive damages claims alone as set forth in the state court Complaint, the defendant had the ability to remove the case to federal court when the complaint. was served.

Overall, the Court found that, where the defendant did not remove the case within the thirty day period allowed, the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Michael Foley of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Upholds Timeliness of Removal of UIM Case to Federal Court

In the case of Ward v. Progressive Pref. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-03666-KNS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2024 Scot, J.), the Eastern Federal District Court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this UIM action that the carrier had removed from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff had argued that the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3) because the carrier filed its removal notice more than thirty (30) days after receiving a demand letter showing that the amount if controversy exceeded the $75,000.00 jurisdiction threshold. 

The Plaintiff additionally argued that the case was removed to federal court more than one (1) year after the commencement of the action in violation of 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(1).

The federal court disagreed and ruled that the removal notice was timely filed under §1446(b) because Progressive removed the action within thirty (30) days of the Complaint, which was the “initial pleading” referred to in the removal statute.

The federal court additionally noted that neither §1446(b)(3) nor the 1-year limitations period under §1446(c)(1) applied to this case.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” (Feb. 22, 2024).

Motion to Remand Granted After Allegation of Fraudulent Joinder Was Rejected by Federal Court

In the case Harris v. Miller’s Ale House, Inc., No. 23-CV-03349 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2023 Baylson, J.), the federal court granted a motion to remand a slip and fall case back to state court where the Plaintiff was found to have asserted valid claims against a store manager who resided in the same jurisdiction of the Plaintiff thereby defeating diversity of the parties necessary for federal court jurisdiction.

This case arose out of a slip and fall. The Plaintiff sued Miller’s Ale House, Inc. along with the manager on duty at the time of the Plaintiff’s incident.

The Plaintiff and the manager of the Ale House were both residents of Pennsylvania.

After the Defendant removed the case the federal court, the Defendant conceded that the manager was a resident of the same jurisdiction as the Plaintiff but argued that his joinder was fraudulent because of his involvement in the case simply arose from the course and scope of his employment with the landowner Defendant.

The Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court. The court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand after finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to the allegation of a fraudulent joinder. In this regard, the federal court found that negligence claims asserted against a manager of a retail establishment arising out of a slip and all incident were colorable under Pennsylvania law.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 28, 2023).

Pleading of Federal Regulations In Trucking Case Does Not Create Federal Issue In Terms of Removal Statute

In the case of Caeser v. Greentree Transportation Co., No. 2:23-CV-03005-GAM (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2023 McHugh, J.), the court addressed a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a fatal trucking accident case from federal court back to state court.

In the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff cited multiple violations of regulations promulgating by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the US Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration.

The Defendant asserted that these allegations created a federal issue thereby making this case removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.

The federal court disagreed and granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the case back to the state court.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 6, 2023).

Source of image: Photo by Jim Wilson from www.unsplash.com

Third Circuit: No Attorney Fees Allowed on Remand of a Case To State Court Except in Limited Circumstances

In the case of Medical Associates of Erie v. Zaycowsky, No. 22-1402 (3d. Cir. Aug. 9, 2023 Hardiman, J., Porter, J., and Fisher, J.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that federal district courts lacked the authority to award attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) when a case has been properly removed from state court but subsequently remanded based upon a forum selection clause. 

The Third Circuit noted that §1447(c) instead only allows for an award of attorney fees in cases involving a remand where the removal to federal court failed to meet the statutory requirements, or where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case. 

In other words, the authority of a district court to offer a remedy for alleged abuses of the removal procedure is limited.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article: “3rd Cir. Clarifies When District Courts Can Award Attorney Fees on Remand” By Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 11, 2023).

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on www.pexels.com.

Case Against Wal-Mart Remanded Back to State Court After Defendant Found Not To Have Removed the Case in Time

In the case of Berry v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P., No. 21-3496 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022 Slomsky, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the case back to state court.

The court noted that the case would be remanded because the Defendants failed to remove the matter to federal court within thirty (30) days of being able to ascertain that the amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction was met.

The court noted that, even though the Complaint did not directly state the amount in controversy, the facts pled noted that the Plaintiff had sustained a crush injury to her foot and that the Plaintiff was still undergoing continuing medical treatment. The court felt that, from these allegations, the Defendants could have reasonably and intelligently concluded that the jurisdictional amount was exceeded.

As such, the court reiterated the rule that the removal period began to run at the time the suit was filed, and not when the Plaintiff may have later specified damages in a Case Management Memorandum. 

While the court noted that the Case Management Memorandum could qualify as an “other paper” under the removal statute for purposes of attempting to ascertain the amount in controversy, the Complaint in this case was found to have provided enough information to start the running of removal period.

In this regard, the court noted that an ad damnum clause for a dollar amount less than the jurisdictional amount does not necessarily preclude a finding that the Plaintiff is seeking more than that amount. 

The court in this Berry case stated that, since the Plaintiff did not agree to stipulate to limit damages to the jurisdictional amount, the Defendants had other bases upon to believe that more money than the jurisdictional limit was being sought by the Plaintiff.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE,


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck from the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Fabio Bracht on www.unsplash.com.

Judge Robert D. Mariani of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Motion for Remand

In the case of Miller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-1433-RDM (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2021 Mariani, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a UIM breach of contract case back to the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had UIM coverage with State Farm in the amount of $25,000.00 per person. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff demanded judgment against State Farm in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs, and other such relief the court may deem appropriate. 

With her Motion for Remand, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount in controversy did not exceed the federal jurisdiction limit of $75,000.00 and that, as such, the action must be remanded to the state Court of Common Pleas.

Judge Mariani reviewed the removal statute and noted that this statute was required to be strictly construed, with all doubts to be resolved in favor of a remand.

The court additionally noted that the test for determining whether a case involved the requisite federal jurisdictional amount is whether, from the allegations in the pleadings, it is apparent, “to a legal certainty” that the Plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed, or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the Plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount. See Op. at 3-4.

Judge Mariani also noted that the United States Supreme Court has long held that Plaintiffs may limit their claims in order to avoid federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Moreover, where a Plaintiff has not specifically alleged in the Complaint that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional minimum, the case must still be remanded if it appears to a legal certainty that the Plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount.

The court also noted that, where a Complaint does not limit its request for damages to a precise monetary amount, the District Court must make an independent appraisal of the potential value of the claim.

Judge Robert D. Mariani
M.D.Pa.

Judge Mariani noted that it was alleged in the Complaint that the Plaintiff’s UIM policy provided UIM benefits in the amount of $25,000.00 per person. The court also emphasized that there was no companion claim for bad faith or punitive damages asserted in the Complaint. It was additionally noted that, relative to this Motion for Remand, the Plaintiff conceded that the Defendant’s only exposure was to $25,000.00 UIM policy limits.

The court rejected the defense argument that federal court jurisdiction had been met under the analysis that the tortfeasor had $100,000.00 in liability coverage which required the Plaintiff to prove her damages were in excess of that liability coverage in order to gain access to the UIM benefits, which necessarily placed the amount in controversy above the $75,000.00 jurisdictional requirement.

Judge Mariani stated that there was no case law in support of this argument. The court reiterated that the Plaintiff’s breach of contract recovery was restricted to the $25,000.00 limits set forth in her State Farm policy.

As such, where the court deemed that it appeared to a “legal certainty” that the Plaintiff could not recover the jurisdictional amount necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this federal court, and given that the federal court is required to strictly construe removal statutes with all doubts to be resolved in favor of a remand, the decision was made to remand the case to the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas.

In a footnote at the end of his decision, Judge Mariani again emphasized “the importance of the fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint only alleges a claim for underinsured motorist benefits/breach of contract.”  See Op. at p. 7, fn.3. In that same footnote, Judge Mariani stated that, “[i]f Plaintiff had included a claim for bad faith, the Court would find that remand was not appropriate.” Id.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Judge Mariani Remands Another Case Back to State Court

Making a U-Turn Back to State Court

In the case of Blizman v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-1546-RDM (M.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2021 Mariani, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a breach of contract and bad faith claim back to the state court.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed a Writ and served it upon the carrier.

Thereafter, the defense attorney entered his appearance on behalf of the carrier.

The Complaint was then filed and sent to the defense lawyer. The Complaint was mailed to the insurance company.

Judge Mariani found that the Complaint had been served and that the timeline for removal was triggered on the date that the defense lawyer was served since the Writ was previously properly served and the defense attorney had previously entered his appearance.

In so ruling, the court reviewed the removal procedure set forth under 28 U.S.C. §1446 and noted that the removal statutes are required to be strictly construed with all doubts to be resolved in favor of a remand where appropriate.

Applying that law to the case before him, Judge Mariani ruled that the case should be remanded.

Anyone wishing to read this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source of image: Photo by Patrick Doyle on Unsplash.

Case That Was Removed to Federal Court Is Remanded Back to State Court

In the case of Lin v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., No. 20-3876 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2020 Pappert, J.), the court addressed issues pertaining to removal of a case to Federal Court and remand of the same.

In this case, the court ruled that, in a UIM case in which the Plaintiff alleged herniations and submitted a demand of a $124,500.00, was a case that was removable immediately such that the carrier should not have waited for an Amended Complaint that included punitive damages and bad faith claims, before removing the case. 

The issue before the court was a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the case under an argument that the initial removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), given that the carrier filed its removal notice more than thirty (30) days after it received the Plaintiff’s initial Complaint. 

The carrier had contended that removal was timely because it could not ascertain that the value of the Plaintiff’s claims exceeded the $75,000.00 jurisdiction limit until the Plaintiff had filed its Amended Complaint.

In the end, the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the case to state court. The court noted that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contained the same facts and allegations but added allegations of bad faith. 

The court noted the rules of removal that require a Defendant to file a Notice of Removal within thirty (30) days of receiving the initial pleading setting for the claims in a civil action. 

Where an initial pleading does not state a removable case, a Defendant may file for removal within thirty (30) days of receiving an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which it may be first ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removal. 

Generally speaking, the thirty (30) day period for removal begins to run when a Defendant can reasonably and intelligently conclude from the pleadings or other papers that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. 

Here, the court held that the carrier could have reasonably and intelligently concluded that the amount of the controversy exceeded $75,000.00 from a review of the initial Complaint filed by the Plaintiff based upon the nature of the injuries alleged. In that regard, the court noted that the original Complaint asserted that the Plaintiff had sustained cervical disc herniations at multiple levels. The court felt that the alleged injuries, taken together, with injury allegations found in other decisions that have allowed the removal based upon a finding that the injuries alleged could satisfy the amount controversy for diversity jurisdiction, supported the conclusion that the Defendant had the opportunity to remove the case sooner and failed to do so. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Michael J. Lyon of the Lansdale, Pennsylvania office of Walsh Pancio, LLC for bringing this case to my attention. 

Grounds for Removal of Case to Federal Court Can be Triggered by Plaintiff's Case Management Memorandum

In the case of Sultan v. AIG Cas. Ins., No. 20-935 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2020 Schiller, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand her action against an insurance company. 

In ruling on the issues before it, including the timing of the removal to federal court in the first place, the court found that a Plaintiff’s pre-Complaint demand did not start the runnning the thirty (30) day clock for filing a Notice of Removal. The court noted that pre-Complaint communications between counsel did not qualify as a document from which it could be ascertained by the defense that the case is one which was removable. The court noted that such documents that pre-date the filing of an initial pleading cannot serve this purpose. 

The court in this decision also established that there may be cases where even the content of the Complaint does not put the Defendant on notice of a possibility for removal.  Rather, the court found in this case that the Defendant was not placed on notice that the amount in controversy was sufficient for removal until the Plaintiff had filed her Case Management Conference Memorandum in which a demand for over $1.2 million dollars was stated. 

The court noted that the Plaintiff's initial pleading was not removable because the amount in controversary was not met within that pleading. However, once the Plaintiff identified the demand in the Case Management filing, the defense could properly remove the case within thirty (30) days of receiving that document. 

Given that the court found that the removal was timely since it was filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of “other paper from which it may be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable,” the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 25, 2020).

Eastern District Federal Court Reviews Proper Procedure For Removal to Federal Court

In the case of Brown v. Teva Pharm., Inc., 19-3700 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2019 Bartle, J.), the court found that a Plaintiff correctly argued that, where the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in federal court before being served with the Complaint, but filed a copy of the Notice of Removal in the state court after they were served, removal was not properly completed.

As such, the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 26, 2019).

Motion To Remand Denied; Joinder of Store Manager As Non-Diverse Defendant Was Not Frivolous

In the case of Badman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 19-4246(E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2019 McHugh, J.), the federal court granted a Motion to Remand the case back to state court.

The federal court rejected the claim by the Defendant that the Plaintiff fraudulently joined a non-diverse party in an effort to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Here, the Plaintiff sued the store manager in addition to Wal-Mart.  The store manager was a resident of Pennsylvania like the Plaintiff.

The court held that the store manager may be liable for injuries suffered by an invitee to the store that the manager helped to manage.  The court noted that, while such a claim against the store manager may be found to be weak or invalid, given the potential liability of the store manager under Pennsylvania law, it could not be said that the joinder of the store manager as a party Defendant was frivolous.   As such, a fraudulent joinder in the context of a removal of the case to federal court was not found.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Deadline to Remove Case to Federal Court Tied to Filing of Complaint, Not Writ of Summons

In the case of McLaughlin v. Bayer Essure, Inc., No. 14-7315 (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2019 Padova, J.), the court denied a Motion to Remand a federal court case back to state court.  

In denying this Motion to Remand, the federal court noted that, although Pennsylvania state law allows for the service of a Writ of Summons without an accompanying Complaint, service of a mere Writ of Summons in the state court does not affect any deadline for removal to federal court.

The federal court emphasized that the only document that that counts with regards to the deadline for the removal of a case to federal court is the Complaint.  

The Court's Opinion can be viewed at this LINK. The court's Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.   Attorney Beck writes the excellent Drug and Device Law blog.   

Motion To Remand Denied After Federal Court Finds that Complete Diversity Exists

The standards for a federal court Motion to Remand a Case were recently addressed in the matter of Gentry v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No. 15-1326 (E.D. Pa. April 22, 2019 Pratter, J.).   According to the Opinion, the corporate Defendants in this matter removed the case from Pennsylvania state court where the Defendants were citizens of Delaware and Connecticut and had complete diversity from the Plaintiff, who was a citizen of Tennessee, and were all of the real and substantial Defendants to the action had consented to the removal. 

The Plaintiff had filed a Motion for Remand which was denied.   The court found that there was complete diversity between the parties such that the removal was proper.  As such, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand was denied.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of court's Opinion in this case may click this LINK.  

Source: “Digest of Recent Cases.”  The Legal Intelligencer (Online Edition) (May 23, 2019).

Standards For Meeting $75,000 Requirement To Remove Case to Federal Court

In the case of Hutchinson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18-CV-2588 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2019 Goldberg, J.), Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg set out useful examples and principles regarding the removal of statutory bad faith claims to the federal court.  

Essential issue in this regard is the degree of certainty required to measure claims made against the federal court jurisdictional requirement that a case has a value of at least $75,000.00.   What follows are some of the examples and principles identified by the court:

1. The sum at issue is determined relative the time the Petition to Remove the Matter Federal Court is filed.

2.  The courts do not look at the low end of an open-ended claim. To the contrary, the test is “a reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated.” 

3.  Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees may be considered in statutory bad faith cases.

4. There is no recovery cap on the punitive damages that attorneys’ fees available under the bad faith statute. (However, the attorneys’ fees must reasonable and the U.S. Supreme has placed limits on punitive damages to conform to due process of law requirements).

5.  In a bad faith case, the “amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000.00 threshold where a Plaintiff is able to recover a specified amount of damages, plus punitive damages and attorneys’ fees…”

In this case, where the Plaintiff’s claim was for specified damages of $24,711.11 plus punitive damages was found to meet the $75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold.  

The court otherwise noted that, in contrast, a failure of a Plaintiff to plead specified unpaid benefit amounts in a bad faith claim works against a decision to allow for the removal of the case to federal court.  

The court noted as examples two (2) cases in which the action was remanded where a Plaintiff pled lost benefits in “an amount not in excess of $50,000.00” and punitive damages “not in excess of $50,000.00.”

It is noted that, in this Hutchinson case, although the $75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold was found to have been met, the court still remanded the action back to state court because the removal was untimely.  As such, the carrier’s efforts to remove the case to federal court were denied.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law offices of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention.  Please be sure to check out Attorney Applebaum’s excellent blog entitled the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog.