Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Emily Wright (2017)

Majors Jewelers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922, 924 (5th Cir. 1997); Renegade Swish, LLC v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 697 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he well-pleaded complaint rule also governs whether a case is removable from state to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a).”) “The existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction.” Renegade Swish, 857 F.3d, at 697 .

Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 697 (5th Cir. 2017).

It is insufficient that a federal question has been raised as a matter of defense or as a counterclaim.” Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320 , 326–27 (5th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added) (citing Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)); see, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (“Nor can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”); Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 697 (5th Cir. 2017) (“In …

The Fifth Circuit generally holds that defendants will be liable for the fees and costs of improper removal unless their arguments in favor of removal are “objectively reasonable.” Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 701 (5th Cir. 2017).

As the Supreme Court reasoned in Shamrock Oil, “the plaintiff, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the state court, was not entitled to avail himself of a right of removal conferred only on a defendant who has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction.” 313 U.S. at 106 . 3 Accord Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 698 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that employer had no right to remove case to federal court because it was original plaintiff); Cooper v. City…

“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , the district courts have original jurisdiction of suits involving federal questions.” Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 695 (5th Cir. 2017) (footnote omitted).2 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar In…

See also Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U. S. 826, 831 (2002) (“[A] counterclaim . . . cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction”); Renegade Swish, L.L.C., 857 F.3d at 697 (“Holmes Group and Vaden extinguished any possibility that a counterclaim can establish federal question jurisdiction.”) The Supreme Court recently clarified that this reasoning applies, even where the removing party is a “third-party defendant” to a count…

See, e.g. , Renegade Swish, LLC v. Wright , 857 F.3d 692 (5th Cir. 2017) (allowing attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) after remanding removed case to state court because there was no federal jurisdiction). 2 Dean , 240 F.3d at 507 . 3 Buckhannon , 532 U.S. at 601 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 . 4 Cadkin v. Loose , 569 F.3d 1142 , 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2009). 5 Yousuf v. Motiva Enters.

Tex. 2020) (“Whether an action is removable based on federal question jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the plaintiff’s ‘well-pleaded complaint’ at the time of removal.” (citing Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., Inc., 238 F.3d 674, 680 (5th Cir. 2001))); see also Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright, 857 F.3d 692, 695-96 (5th Cir. 2017) (“The [United States] Supreme Court has explained that ‘under the present statutory scheme as it has existed since 1887, a defendant ma…