Innocent Party Protection Act
- Last Action
- 3/13/2017
Actions
- 2017-03-13Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2017-03-09Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- 2017-03-09On passage Passed by recorded vote: 224 - 194 (Roll no. 152).
- 2017-03-09Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 224 - 194 (Roll no. 152).
- 2017-03-09On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 187 - 233 (Roll no. 151).
- 2017-03-09The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
- 2017-03-09Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kuster (NH) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the bill back to the House with an amendment to add an exemption for any civil action brought forward that pertains to ethics in government.
- 2017-03-09Ms. Kuster (NH) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H2002)
- 2017-03-09The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- 2017-03-09The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 725.
- 2017-03-09UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was on amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
- 2017-03-09The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
- 2017-03-09Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2000-2004)
- 2017-03-09Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 725 as unfinished business.
- 2017-03-09On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Showing 15 of 20 actions. Full history on Congress.gov.
CRS Summary
As of 2017-03-09 (81)
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Innocent Party Protection Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends procedures under which federal courts determine whether a case that was removed from a state court to a federal court on the basis of a diversity of citizenship among the parties may be remanded back to state court upon a motion opposed on fraudulent joinder grounds that: (1) one or more defendants are citizens of the same state as one or more plaintiffs, or (2) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.Joinder of such a defendant is fraudulent if the court finds:
- actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts with respect to that defendant,
- state law would not plausibly impose liability on that defendant,
- state or federal law bars all claims in the complaint against that defendant, or
- no good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or to seek a joint judgment including that defendant.
In determining whether to grant or deny such a motion for remand, the court: (1) may permit pleadings to be amended; and (2) must consider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties.
A federal court finding that all such defendants have been fraudulently joined must: (1) dismiss without prejudice the claims against those defendants, and (2) deny the motion for remand.
Cosponsors (5)
- ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA)
- Trent Franks (R-AZ)
- Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
- LAMAR SMITH (R-TX)
- PETE SESSIONS (R-TX)
Subjects
- Civil actions and liability
- Evidence and witnesses
- Federal district courts
- Fraud offenses and financial crimes
- Judicial procedure and administration
- State and local courts
Sourced from Congress.gov (public domain).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.