MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Axos Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a district court “must retain jurisdiction over [a] properly removed federal claim”
• finding the district court exceeded its whether removal was appropriate. Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095; Pintando v. Miami–Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam
• denying joint motion to remand with no argument or citation to authority as improper, as “[t]he Court's discretion to remand a case involving a properly removed federal claim is narrow and limited by statute.”
• denying joint motion to remand with no argument or citation to authority as improper, as “[t]he Court's discretion to remand a case involving a properly removed federal claim is narrow and limited by statute.”
• A district court does not have “discretion to remand to state court a case that includes a properly removed federal claim.”
• “[section 1367(c) cannot be fairly read as bestowing on district courts the discretion to remand to a state court a case that includes a properly removed federal claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).