Top Law Schools

If a suit is in fed dist ct in a forum state where there is no per. jur. over the D, say California, can the case be remanded to state court?

If the federal court doesn't have PJ over the defendant, neither will the state court. Furthermore, cases can't be removed from federal court to state court.

/thread?

You sir, just won me an argument. (treating you as authority).

Charles Barkley wrote:If the federal court doesn't have PJ over the defendant, neither will the state court. Furthermore, cases can't be removed from federal court to state court.

/thread?

Yes, /end thread.

TITCR

irish017 wrote:You sir, just won me an argument. (treating you as authority).

Another wrinkle. What if the case was first filed in state court and removed to fed court by the defendant even without jurisdiction? Same thing ryyyyyte?

irish017 wrote:Another wrinkle. What if the case was first filed in state court and removed to fed court by the defendant even without jurisdiction? Same thing ryyyyyte?

Can't do it. Fed court won't have PJ either.

There is no removal from federal court to state court.

irish017 wrote:Another wrinkle. What if the case was first filed in state court and removed to fed court by the defendant even without jurisdiction? Same thing ryyyyyte?

No Personal Jurisdiction right? Then same thing, subject matter wouldn't be the same though. i.e. if P files it in state court then D removes it to Fed Court, the federal court could say sorry no SMJ if there is none and remand it back to state court.

Also here is an example. P files suit against D in Oklahoma state court, where D has never been. D files to have it removed to federal court, which would be proper, then files a 12(b)(2) motion for lack of PJ. court decides that correct no PJ, so dismisses. There would be issue preclusion now in Oklahoma to hear the case. Meaning P couldn't try to remand (court would have dismissed the action - no remand) and also couldn't refile in Oklahoma state court again.

From my understanding.

Civ pro related question, but with venue.

Dee-K, does anyone have any insight on how this case changed how we look at foreign corporations/foreign defendants in general for the purposes of venue?