Lena Mae Harris v. Edward Hyman Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff waived her right to seek remand because she “fail[ed] to as- sert promptly her objections to the defects in the petition and . . . proceed[ed] with discovery”
• explaining that the federal removal statute has been interpreted to require that all defendants join in the removal petition
• acknowledging that motion to remand case to state court could be referred by district judge to magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), which authorizes outright ruling on nondispositive matters, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B
• waiver where plaintiff participated in discovery and gave no indication of dissatisfaction with the federal forum until the remand motion was filed
• no statute of limitations problem; therefore, no prejudice
• consent voiced at conference with court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).