ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Removal and venue changes now in effect

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateAs noted in this column in December, the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 was passed in early December and took effect Jan. 6. The Act amends the removal statutes in several important respects, including:

if defendants are served at different times, and a later-served defendant files a notice of removal, any earlier-served defendant may consent to the removal even though he did not previously initiate or consent to removal;

the act still has a one-year cap on diversity removals unless the District Court finds that the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, and if the court finds that plaintiff failed to disclose the amount in controversy to avoid removal, that is bad faith.

The act also amends venue provisions:

The act creates a new provision, 28 U.S.C. 1390 describing venue generally; and 

Section 1391 is rewritten, collapsing (a) (diversity) and (b) (federal question) into a new (b) that has the same three standards.

The act applies to all cases commenced in federal court on or after Jan. 6, and for removed action, to any case that under applicable state law had been commenced on or after Jan. 6. The act has been cited in three federal opinions so far, but only in passing reference and noting that the act did not apply to the pending case. In the coming months, there are certain to be many cases addressing the act.

Where to find the statute – Even with the act now in effect, practitioners may have difficulty finding a clean version of the amended statutes. The act is complicated and technical, deleting some provisions, adding others, and of course, not providing a “clean” final version of the rewritten Code sections. As of Jan. 12, not all online sources of U.S. Code (free or for pay) had updated versions of the affected sections (including, for instance, the Government Printing Office). Lexis does appear to have the amended statutes online now.

Practitioners should be very careful to ensure that the statutory sections referred to from Jan. 6 forward are accurate and up to date. The way to discern this is to check for 28 U.S.C. 1390, which did not exist as of Jan. 5, but came into effect as a new section as part of the act on Jan. 6. In the meantime, anyone desiring a copy of the act can email the undersigned for a PDF copy.

Local rules – In late December, both the S.D. of Indiana and the N.D. of Indiana separately announced that their Local Rule amendments would take effect Jan. 1. The updated versions of each court’s Local Rules – which include the restyling edits – are now posted on the courts’ websites.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT