People v. Funchess

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’s delay of 52 days after removal before filing a motion to remand was reasonable
• holding that 30-day filing deadline does not apply to motions for abstention-based remand, which must be brought within reasonable time after filing of notice of removal
• holding that the presence of novel or complex state-law questions weighs “dramatically in favor of remand” when a “lawsuit touches on multiple issues of state importance while impacting no federal policy”
• explaining that the local controversy exception “require[s] abstention from the exercise of jurisdiction and [is] not truly jurisdictional in nature”
• joining other circuits to hold that Section 1447(c) does not apply to remand motions based on CAFA’s mandatory- abstention provisions
• noting the two “category[ies] of remand order described in § 1447(c)” are those “based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or defects in removal procedure” (internal quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).