News & Analysis as of

Remand Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: The Federal Circuit Remands and Reassigns District Court Patent Infringement Case to a New Judge

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more

Knobbe Martens

New Trial Granted Because “Nearly All” of the Defendant’s Noninfringement Evidence Was Untimely

Knobbe Martens on

The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Appellate Courts and Messy Kitchens

Fox Rothschild LLP on

Ever had to explain to a client why a sweet win in the lower courts doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s time to dig in and eat? In City of Martinsville, VA v. Express Scripts, a Fourth Circuit majority opinion used a...more

Snell & Wilmer

United States Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That an Amended Complaint Can Deprive Federal Courts of Jurisdiction

Snell & Wilmer on

The Supreme Court ruled on January 15, 2025, that if a plaintiff amends a complaint to remove federal claims after a case has been removed to federal court, the federal court loses its jurisdiction over the remaining...more

McGlinchey Stafford

SCOTUS: Case Removed on Federal Question Grounds Must Be Remanded if Federal Claim Is Dismissed

McGlinchey Stafford on

In a seminal opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that a case removed on federal question grounds is properly remanded when the plaintiff amends his or her complaint and dismisses the federal claims. What is the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Magazine Reload: Claim Construction Error Requires Reversal and Remand

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling based on a claim construction error because nothing in the claims or specification of the asserted patent supported the...more

Goodwin

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Decide Whether Automatic Discovery Stay Applies to Securities Act Cases in State Court

Goodwin on

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Decide Whether Automatic Discovery Stay Applies to Securities Act Cases in State Court; Delaware Court of Chancery Dismisses Stockholder Suit Against FedEx for Failure to Make Pre-Litigation...more

King & Spalding

Due to Intervening Change in Law, Ninth Circuit Allows Plaintiffs Another Opportunity to Pursue Class Claims After They...

King & Spalding on

The Ninth Circuit recently clarified what standard applies when a party seeks relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). In so doing, the court allowed two plaintiffs who had previously voluntarily dismissed their class action...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Winning the Removal Race: District Courts Put Limits on 'Snap Removal'

Troutman Pepper Locke on

In two recent decisions — Brown v. Teva Pharmaceuticals and Doe v. Valley Forge Military Academy & College — courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania put limits on the use of so-called “snap removal,” a strategy...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Where There’s a Claim Construction Dispute, Resolve It Before Ruling on Ineligibility

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s decision for failure to address the parties’ claim construction dispute before ruling...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Bankruptcy Jurisdiction: The Time-of-Filing Rule Applies to “Related-To” Jurisdiction

Consider these facts. A debtor in bankruptcy sued two parties for breach of contract. The debtor assigned its rights and interests in the cause of action to another entity. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing...more

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Limited Authority to Remove Class Actions to Original Defendants, Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more

K&L Gates LLP

“Any Defendant” Does Not Really Mean “Any Defendant”

K&L Gates LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Said “No” to Class Arbitration in Employment-Related Data Breach Dispute Because Arbitration Agreement...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Facing a Class Action Complaint as a Third-Party Defendant? Time to Get Comfortable in State Court

Foley & Lardner LLP on

From the class action defense perspective, companies and counsel alike are almost always looking for an angle to move a state-filed putative class action to the more rigorous environment of the federal courts.  Congress...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

The Supreme Court Rules on Class Action Removal Limits for Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants

In Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 (May 28, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions have authority under the general removal...more

BakerHostetler

When a Third-Party Defendant is Not a Defendant – Supreme Court Reinforces Removal Loophole

BakerHostetler on

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that third-party defendants in state court actions cannot remove...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

“Any” Doesn’t Mean “All”: In Home Depot, SCOTUS Says “Any Defendant” Doesn’t Include Third-party Defendants Facing Class Claims

To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal...more

A&O Shearman

Supreme Court Holds That Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not Remove An Action Based On The General Removal Statute Or CAFA

A&O Shearman on

On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas that a third-party counterclaim defendant was not permitted to remove class action claims against it under the general removal statute, 28...more

Proskauer - Advertising Law

Supreme Court Limits Removal of Class-Action Counterclaims

On May 28, the Supreme Court decided Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson, 17-1471 (2019), ruling 5–4 that third-party counterclaim defendants may not remove class actions from state to federal court. The decision, besides keeping in...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court: Third-Party Defendants Cannot Remove to Federal Court

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

It has long been established that a state-court plaintiff who is the subject of a counterclaim cannot remove the case to federal court. ...more

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Declines to Remove Loophole in CAFA

Carlton Fields on

On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas ­­— joined by unlikely allies Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — wrote the 5-4 majority opinion holding that third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions do not...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants Are Not Entitled To Removal Under The CAFA

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: Defendants can remove lawsuits filed in state courts to federal courts if they meet the statutory requirements for removal under either 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or the Class Action Fairness Act. In Home Depot U....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Stranded in State Court: Supreme Court Holds that Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants Cannot Remove Class-Action Counterclaims to...

The Lede - As Congress appreciated when it enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), large, multistate class actions are better suited for federal courts, not state ones. Following that logic, the Supreme Court...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Supreme Court rejects class-action counterclaim removal

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a counterclaim defendant’s attempt to remove a would-be class action to federal court, holding that even where that defendant, Home Depot, was not an original plaintiff, there was no right...more

35 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide