The district courts of the United States, the United States courts of any territory, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction under this chapter and, concurrent with State courts, of actions at law or in equity brought under this chapter without regard to the amount in controversy. Any such action may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, or in the district where the sale took place, and process in such cases may be served in other districts of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found. No case arising under this chapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States, except where any officer or employee of the United States in his official capacity is a party.
Notes of Decisions
City of Jacksonville v. Dep't of the Navy, 348 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2003).
“Congress has demonstrated in other statutes that it can unequivocally preclude removal in certain instances if it chooses. See Breuer v.”
Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 292 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 1719 ; 15 U.S.C. § 3612 . 28 U.S.C. § 1445 states that “(a) A civil action in any State court against a railroad or its receivers or trustees, arising under sections 51-60 of Title 45, may not be removed to any district court of the United States, (b) A civil action in any…”
West 14th Street Com. Corp. v. 5 West 14th Owners Corp., 815 F.2d 188 (2d Cir. 1987).
“§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 3612 . The latter gives the federal courts jurisdiction to hear “actions at law or in equity brought under [The Condominium and Cooperative Abuse Relief Act of 1980] without regard to the amount in controversy.”
Park East Apts., Inc. v. 233 East 86th Street Corp., 139 Misc. 2d 806 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1988).
“The Act specifically provided that cases under it could be brought in State or Federal courts ( 15 USC § 3612 ), *817 reflecting congressional awareness of alternate State and Federal interpretations.”
Phoenix Tenants Ass'n v. 6465 Realty Co., 119 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986).
“( 15 USC § 3612 .) Under the circumstances herein, the Attorney-General has taken the position that the offering plan for The Phoenix is subject to the Act, and I concur.”
Villaume v. iTrade Network, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 2× “Villaume alleges there is “concurrent jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 3612” over her MHRA claims. Am.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.