Legal Opinion
Cmiech v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 2, 2007No. Civil Action 3:07-CV-1495PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge.
In this case, the Plaintiffs seek remand because removal was not effected within thirty (30) days of receipt of the complaint through service or otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because I find removal to have been timely, Plaintiffs motion will be denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
On a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of establishing the propriety of removal. See Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085, 111 S.Ct. 959, 112 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1991). Furthermore, “removal statutes are to be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- James F. Boyer and Mary R. Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corporation, Kenneth Baldwin and Keith A. Kaiser. Appeal of James F. Boyer and Mary R. BoyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Jeffrey D. Brierly, Administrator of the Estate of Paul Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc. David EllisonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Cathcart v. Keene Industrial InsulationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Billy Max Brown v. Demco, Inc. v. Employers Casualty Co., Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Di Loreto v. CostiganCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Allstate Insurance v. Funai Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Federal InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Di Loreto v. CostiganCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- CHAGARES v. MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTERDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2022
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.