New Hampshire Bar Association
About the Bar
For Members
For the Public
Legal Links
Publications
Newsroom
Online Store
Vendor Directory
NH Bar Foundation
Judicial Branch
NHMCLE

Keep your contact information up-to-date.

Trust your transactions to the only payment solution recommended by over 50 bar associations.
New Hampshire Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service Law Related Education NHBA CLE NHBA Insurance Agency
MyNHBar
Member Login
Member Portal
Casemaker

Bar News - July 15, 2015


Federal Practice & Bankruptcy: To Remove or Not to Remove from Federal Court?

By:
Attorneys facing a scenario in which state law claims supplement a federal claim should consider whether removal is beneficial or necessary.

Removal of state actions to federal district court provides practitioners with a valuable tool for actions filed in state court that involve a question under federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants in particular may find that removing a case that has both state and federal questions from state court may provide a more favorable venue for their defense, including the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, electronic filing and a broader population to form a jury pool.

Practitioners representing defendants may be quick to file for removal to federal district court once they see the plaintiff’s state law matter contains a federal question. Yet, the presence of state law claims, in addition to a federal question, should give practitioners pause. It is important to take into consideration whether to file for removal because the supplemental jurisdiction that the federal district court exercises over the state claims is dependent on whether the federal question remains germane. This consideration is relevant to the intended strategy of the defendant to fully adjudicate the matter through trial in the federal district court or remove to federal district court solely to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

When a defendant removes a matter that has state law questions and motions the court for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court will first look to the federal question when it makes its decision. If the court dismisses the federal question, it will no longer be able to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

In Camelio v. American Federation (1998), the court was required to remand the plaintiff’s state law claims back to the superior court for further adjudication.

Once the remaining state claims are remanded to state court, the defendant will be obliged to either file an answer to the plaintiff’s state law claims, or a motion to dismiss, presumably within 30 days of remand from the federal district court. See Rule 9(b). The end result is that the lawyer’s decision to remove the matter to federal district court, only to make a dispositive motion, results in the federal claim being removed and requires an additional motion to dismiss filed in superior court to dispose of the state law claims, which incurs additional time and expense to the defendant.

Attorneys facing a scenario in which state law claims supplement a federal claim should consider whether removal is beneficial or necessary. Among the factors to consider are whether the federal question is exclusive to the subject matter of the federal district court or whether the superior court has concurrent jurisdiction over the claim; whether there is a tactical advantage to remove to federal district court; or whether the defendant intends to fully adjudicate the matter before the federal district court, or file a dispositive motion.

It also is important to consider the application of the Rules of Professional Conduct. For example, communication to the client under Rule 1.4(a)(3) and Rule 1.4(b) might be implicated. Communicating to the client the rationale for removal to federal district court for a dispositive motion and the possibility of duplicative filing upon remand of the state law claims would be implicit to make the client aware that the tactic might involve added time and expense.

Depending on the scope of representation in the fee agreement, the client may not wish to pursue removal.

Practitioners also should consider their professional duty to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client under Rule 1.3 when considering removal. When faced with the issue of supplemental state law claims, the practitioner should resolve whether removal to federal district court and filing a dispositive motion is reasonably diligent in adjudicating the defendant’s matter.

Removal to federal district court is a beneficial tool for practitioners to employ when faced with federal questions in superior court. However, even though practitioners have the option, removal may not be advantageous. Attorneys should accordingly analyze whether it is to the defendant’s advantage to remove the matter to federal court and, if suitable, discuss the issue with their clients.


Michael Listner focuses his practice on assisting attorneys with their litigation needs, including litigation consulting, general and complex legal research, motions and appellate briefs. Contact Listner at (603)833-0346 or visit nhlegalresearch.com or Twitter @nhlegalrsrch.

NHLAP: A confidential Independent Resource

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer