If it’s Wednesday, it’s plainly time to talk about removal. Today’s case, In re Depo Provera Prods Liab. Litigation, 2025 WL 3252445 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2025), upholds one of the defense bar’s favorite procedural maneuvers,snap removal. The case was snapped in California, in the Ninth Circuit, and transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation in
Defendants know that the quickest way to level an uneven playing field is to… well… sprint. And few procedural tools reward nimble defense work quite like snap removal—the perfectly valid act of removing a case to federal court before the forum defendant is served. Plaintiffs call it gamesmanship. We call it reading the statute. Yet
Snap removal is one of the few ways that defendants can counter plaintiffs’ efforts at forum shopping. When a case analyzes snap removal and expressly adopts fraudulent misjoinder in the Third Circuit, you know it gets our attention.
Today’s decision, Paddock v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2025 WL 1908806 (D. Del. July 11, 2025), is a report and recommendation denying remand following the defendant’s snap removal. The case involves claims by multiple plaintiffs that the defendant wrongfully promoted the off-label use of terbutaline (an asthma drug) to treat pre-term labor in pregnant women, and that the plaintiffs’ children developed autism as a result of their ingestion of the drug during pregnancy.Continue Reading Snap! Sometimes the Third Time Isn’t a Charm
Mulitdistrict litigations – both federal MDLs and their state-court equivalents – sound like noble endeavors. The concept is simple: consolidate similar lawsuits under one judge to streamline proceedings. This, in theory, avoids contradictory rulings and saves court resources. But when you pan out past the injured plaintiffs and mountains of medical records, you’ll spot one
We have learned, through repeated harsh experience (e.g., Mallory, Wullschleger, Harrington) that while the current Supreme Court can be described as “conservative,” that hardly means that it is pro-business. Indeed, it appears that when the issue is p-side forum-shopping, the Notorious RBG (opponent of all things preemption) was far more
The passage of time can change our collective perception of what is normal and accepted. By way of a somewhat contrived example, back in 1989, there was a popular cross-over rap song called “Just a Friend” by Biz Markie. It was catchy, entertaining, and a contrast to so-called “gangsta rap” that scared the Parents Music
It is a truism in product liability matters that plaintiffs love state courts, whereas defense lawyers and our clients much prefer federal court. There are reasons for this. Twombly and Iqbal pleading standards are more rigorous than the pleading standards in many state courts. Federal judges often have fewer cases and more clerks than state
When a defendant removes a case to federal court on the basis that the case presents federal questions, what happens if the plaintiff amends the complaint to remove all references to federal law, leaving only state-law claims? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that once the plaintiff amends to delete all federal claims, a federal
We have written many times, as recently as Tuesday, that the practice of plaintiff lawyers to include patently inapplicable claims among a laundry list of causes of action asserted in complaints is lazy, if not problematic. It is rare to see a plaintiff self-regulate and cull down an overbroad pleading without a defense motion
It could be a first-year civil procedure question: The removability of a case to federal court is determined as of the moment of removal – nothing thereafter can defeat removal. See, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indemnity. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938) (a plaintiff cannot “deprive the district court of jurisdiction” “after removal” “by amendment of his pleadings”); 14A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §3721, at 213 (2d ed. 1985) (once “a case has been properly removed . . . plaintiff[s] cannot successfully do anything to defeat federal jurisdiction and force a remand”).
That is precisely what the petitioner in a pending United States Supreme Court matter, Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, is asking the Court to hold. Oral argument in the Royal Canin case is occurring today. For more details, including copies of all pleadings, see the SCOTUSblog page.Continue Reading Under the Radar SCOTUS Removal Issue