Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster case brief summary
45 F.3d 780
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner municipal government filed a writ of mandamus that challenged the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which had remanded respondent claimants' state case involving malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 back to the state court after being removed to the district court based on the § 1983 claim.
FACTS:
-Respondent claimants had filed an action against petitioners, retail mall and municipal government, for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and a federal claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
-Petitioners, based on the § 1983 claim, filed a notice of removal to the federal district court. Respondents moved to remand it back to state court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The district court remanded back to state court, and petitioners challenged that decision by filing a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to accept jurisdiction.
-The court granted the writ and found that the federal court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1331 and 1343.
HOLDING:
Because the district court had jurisdiction, the action was properly removed from state court under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that § 1441(c) granted to the district court only limited authority to remand a case, and that respondents' claims were not separate and independent. The court found that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c) did not sanction the remand of the entire case because the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims.
OUTCOME: The court issued the writ of mandamus.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
45 F.3d 780
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner municipal government filed a writ of mandamus that challenged the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which had remanded respondent claimants' state case involving malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 back to the state court after being removed to the district court based on the § 1983 claim.
FACTS:
-Respondent claimants had filed an action against petitioners, retail mall and municipal government, for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, and a federal claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
-Petitioners, based on the § 1983 claim, filed a notice of removal to the federal district court. Respondents moved to remand it back to state court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The district court remanded back to state court, and petitioners challenged that decision by filing a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to accept jurisdiction.
-The court granted the writ and found that the federal court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1331 and 1343.
HOLDING:
Because the district court had jurisdiction, the action was properly removed from state court under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that § 1441(c) granted to the district court only limited authority to remand a case, and that respondents' claims were not separate and independent. The court found that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c) did not sanction the remand of the entire case because the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims.
OUTCOME: The court issued the writ of mandamus.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment