Jurisdiction — Removal – Untimeliness

Where a case brought in state court by the Michigan Attorney General has been removed, the case must be remanded because the defendant failed to timely remove the case under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal.

“Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel seeks to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline, which runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. The merits of this litigation are not before us. Instead, we consider only which court should decide this case: does it belong in Michigan state court (where the Attorney General filed it in 2019) or in federal court (to where Enbridge removed it over two years later)? We hold that Enbridge failed to timely remove this case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal. Thus, under these circumstances, this case belongs in Michigan state court. Because the district court held to the contrary, we reverse the district court and direct it to remand this case to Michigan’s 30th Circuit Court for the County of Ingham.

“In sum, under either of Enbridge’s jurisdictional theories, Enbridge had good-faith grounds to argue for federal jurisdiction more than 30 days before it removed this case. Enbridge missed 1446(b)(1)’s initial window for removal, and to the extent 1446(b)(3)’s later removal window was ever open, Enbridge missed that one too. Enbridge’s removal was therefore untimely under 1446(b).

“Accordingly, we hold that 1446(b)’s time limitations are mandatory. When invoked in a timely motion to remand, these limitations leave no room for equitable exceptions. Enbridge’s failure to comply with these mandatory rules requires remand.”

Nessel v. Enbridge Energy LP; MiLW 01-108114, 17 pages; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Griffin, J., joined by Thapar, J., Nalbandian, J.; on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids; Daniel P. Bock for appellant; Alice Loughran for appellees.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.