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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT