Calderon v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding thirty-six day delay was relatively short and harmless and did not justify remand
• observing that the purported defect—the defendant’s failure to notify the state court promptly of removal in alleged violation of section 1446(d)—was “harmless and, not being jurisdictional, creates no basis for remand”
• refusing to remand where defendant waited 36 days to file the notice of removal with state court and the state court had taken no action
• 36-day delay sufficiently prompt where state court took no action during intervening period
• not remanding for “relatively short” delay of just over a month
• “[W]here, as here, the delay was relatively short and no action was taken by the state court between the time of actual removal and the time of the requisite notice, the alleged defect is harmless and, not being jurisdictional, creates no basis for remand.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).