#T3BE 218 - full question text for Patrons
Added 2021-03-12 04:30:01 +0000 UTC
Comments
I think Thomas lucked into the right answer. He said there was no diversity because the case was filed in state B, and the retailer has a place of business there. However, there IS diversity: the woman lives in state A and the retailer has no presence in state A. There is diversity, but that diversity is not sufficient for removal, as TheEthicalJerk explained. (EDIT: Thomas deserves more credit than that! Terminology aside, his reasoning was solid.) A little friendly feedback: Please make sure the question is clearly audible. There was some crosstalk and I couldn't hear where the case was filed. But I was happy I could read the text here! :)
Quark Twain
2021-03-14 09:45:43 +0000 UTCI'm a dumb. 1) A company is a citizen of both where it is incorporated and where it has its primary place of business. 2) If the case gets removed at all, it will go to the district court having jurisdiction over the state where the suit was filed (State B). Answer's still C tho.
Theo Caro
2021-03-12 20:53:08 +0000 UTCFor diversity jurisdiction what matters is where a organization is incorporated. So B and D are out. Twenty days seems like a reasonable time frame for requesting removal, or just like responding to a complaint in any which way, so I hold some suspicion for A, but it could go the other way. I think there is a difference here between the case being "properly removed" and whether State B federal district court actually has jurisdiction. It is appropriate for the case to be removed, just not to that federal court. The answer is C.
Theo Caro
2021-03-12 20:38:44 +0000 UTC
