*Sigh*, seems like we have had 3 topics on this in the past 2 days. Anyway, I have re-read every case and this threw me a bit as I may have not had the best understanding before. Let me know if I am right.
Mottley established the WPC rule stating that you need to focus on the plaintiffs complaint. The plaintiff is the one that needs to allege the 1331 issue for it to be a federal court issue, doesn't matter if the defendant is anticipated to bring up a federal law claim.
Ok, thats easy, but in Grabble it seems like they say if you have a state claim and you can meet the 3 part Grable test essentially saying that if the federal issue is substantial, necessary, actually disputed, and does not disturb federal and state forum balance it can be removed to federal court even if it wasn't in the WPC by the plaintiff.
Is that right? What does Grable do to Mottley then? Whats the WPC rule after Grabble?
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 7920
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm
BarbellDreams wrote:Is that right? What does Grable do to Mottley then? Whats the WPC rule after Grabble?
The embedded state claim has to still appear on the face of the WPC. Think of it through Merrel Dow: it's a negligence claim - but the duty is established by the FDCA.
The WPC doesn't change after Grable, if it doesn't appear on the face somehow, it's no good. Just think "does the P's cause of action implicate federal law on its own merit?"
The WPC only applies to claims filed in federal court. Don't confuse yourself needlessly by throwing in removal - it's a different ball game.