Monday, May 24, 2004

Law School Memory #32: Cases

Prof. Civ Pro would usually call on a pair of students to brief a case for the class with one taking a side and the other taking the other side. He sorta broke format one day. It ended up being extortion by cupcake.

Here's the case:
Under the Supreme Court's decision in S.G., the claim against the Red Cross in the instant case is properly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Under this condition, the Court must exercise jurisdiction over Roe's case insofar as it attempts to assert a claim against the Red Cross.
Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the Court properly has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against the Red Cross, Roe moves the Court to exercise its discretion under the statute governing the removal of cases to the federal courts codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (1991) and remand the entire case, including that portion which relates to the claim against the Red Cross, back to the state court. Subsection (c) of that statute reads:
Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 of this title is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
Roe asserts that this court does not properly have jurisdiction over the non-Red Cross defendants [FN4] and must remand the case back to state court as it relates to them. But, in order to avoid piecemeal litigation, Roe insists that this Court should also transfer the case against the Red Cross as well. [FN5] Thus the Court must determine first whether it can properly assert jurisdiction over the non-Red Cross defendants, and second, even if it can, whether the Court can and should exercise its jurisdiction under the removal statute to remand the case back to the state court in which it was first filed. Roe v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 800 F.Supp. 620 (N.D.Ill., 1992).

No comments: