28 U.S.C. § 1445

Nonremovable actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A civil action in any State court against a railroad or its receivers or trustees, arising under sections 1–4 and 5–10 of the Act of April 22, 1908 (45 U.S.C. 51–54, 55–60), may not be removed to any district court of the United States.(b) A civil action in any State court against a carrier or its receivers or trustees to recover damages for delay, loss, or injury of shipments, arising under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, may not be removed to any district court of the United States unless the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.(c) A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.(d) A civil action in any State court arising under section 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 may not be removed to any district court of the United States.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 939; Pub. L. 85–554, § 5, July 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 415; Pub. L. 95–473, § 2(a)(3)(A), Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1465; Pub. L. 95–486, § 9(b), Oct. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 1634; Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, § 40302(e)(5), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1942; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, § 305(b), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 944; Pub. L. 104–287, § 3, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3388.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 71 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 28, 36 Stat. 1094; Jan. 20, 1914, ch. 11, 38 Stat. 278; Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 1, 45 Stat. 54).

The words “or its receivers or trustees” were inserted in both subsections to make clear that nonremovable actions against a carrier do not become removable under section 1442 of this title when filed against court receivers or trustees.

This was the unquestioned rule prior to the act of Aug. 23, 1916, ch. 399, 39 Stat. 532, amending section 76 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and permitting removal of actions against officers of United States courts. The cases are in conflict as to whether under that amendment the case becomes removable when the carrier is in receivership or undergoing reorganization. The revised section resolves the conflict by denying the right of removal to receivers and trustees where it would be nonexistent if the carrier were the party defendant. Thus the subject matter rather than legalistic distinctions as to the identity of the parties is made determinative consideration.

A reference in section 71 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to sections 51–59 of title 45, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Railroads, was changed to “51–60.” Such sections 51–59 embraced all of chapter 2 of said title 45 when the law on which such section 71 is based was enacted, but a new section (60) was added in 1939.

Other provisions of section 71 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., appear in section 1441 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, referred to in subsec. (d), is section 40302 of title IV of Pub. L. 103–322, which is classified to section 12361 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–287 substituted “sections 1–4 and 5–10 of the Act of April 22, 1908 (45 U.S.C. 51–54, 55–60)” for “sections 51–60 of Title 45”.

1995—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–88 substituted “carrier” for “common carrier” and “11706 or 14706” for “11707”.

1994—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–322 added subsec. (d).

1978—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–486 substituted “$10,000” for “$3,000”.

Pub. L. 95–473 substituted “section 11707 of title 49” for “section 20 of Title 49”.

1958—Pub. L. 85–554 substituted “Nonremovable actions” for “Carriers; nonremovable actions” in section catchline and added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–287 effective July 5, 1994, see section 8(1) of Pub. L. 104–287, set out as a note under section 5303 of Title 49, Transportation.

Effective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transportation.

Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–554 applicable only in the case of actions commenced after July 25, 1958, see section 3 of Pub. L. 85–554, set out as a note under section 1331 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 619 cases (114 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Brendan Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 983 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brendan Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 983 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “1915) (referring to the prohibition on removal now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (a)). It exists to “preserve the plaintiff’s choice of a (state) forum, under circumstances where it is arguably less urgent to provide a federal forum to prevent prejudice.”

Dean Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc., 58 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 1995). · cites it 7× “Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the issue of whether removal was proper is now moot because plaintiff has since amended his complaint to include federal claims under the LMRA alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). For the…”

Roberts v. Beaulieu of Am., Inc., 950 F. Supp. 1509 (N.D. Ala. 1996). · cites it 28× “1 Plaintiff moved to remand on November 13, 1995, contending that retaliatory discharge claims “arise under Alabama’s worker’s compensation laws” and, accordingly, are not removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c), which provides: (c) A civil action in any…”

Derrick E. Harper v. Autoalliance Int'l, Inc., Aai Emp. Servs. Co., L.L.C., Jeffrey Kelly, & Allen Childress, 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “The court further held that removal was proper notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c), which prohibits the removal of a civil action “arising under the workmen’s compensation laws” of a state.”

Farrior v. Sodexho, U.S.A., 953 F. Supp. 1301 (N.D. Ala. 1997). · cites it 30× “1 is a part of the Workers’ Compensation Act the court turns to 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c), which follows, to see if the instant action was properly removed: A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any…”

Bartel ex rel. Est. of Bishop v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 64 F. Supp. 3d 843 (M.D. La. 2014). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff asserts that removal is improper because (1) his Jones Act claims are non-removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (a), (2) his general maritime law claims are non-removable pursuant to the “saving to suitors” clause of 28 U.”

Hanna v. Fleetguard, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Iowa 1995). · cites it 14× “This epitome of comity and sovereignty is 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c), the statute prohibiting the removal of civil actions “arising under” the workers’ compensation laws.”

Hummel v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 749 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Haw. 1990). · cites it 15× “Plaintiff argues that defendants improperly removed this action since 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c) prohibits removal of actions arising under state workers’ compensation laws.”

Gomez v. O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc., 283 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff responded with the instant Motion on October 11, 2017, arguing that removal was improper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c). Mot. ¶ 1, ECF No. 6.”

Husk v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 842 F. Supp. 895 (S.D.W. Va 1994). · cites it 8× “The Plaintiff argues in his motion to remand that the case may not be removed to this court because removal is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c) (1978), which states: "A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such State may not be…”

New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 2× “The Jones Act removal bar, contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (a), like Section 22(a), provides plaintiff with a choice-of-forum privilege.”

Walter Spearman v. Exxon Coal Usa, Inc., 16 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “The potential obstacle is 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c): “A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.”

Show all 619 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a) — 4 cases

Rosario v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 158 F. Supp. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).

Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012).

Greene v. United Fruit Co., 85 F. Supp. 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1949).

Roddy v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 282 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Pa. 2017).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) — 14 cases

Derrick E. Harper v. Autoalliance Int'l, Inc., Aai Emp. Servs. Co., L.L.C., Jeffrey Kelly, & Allen Childress, 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004). “The court further held that removal was proper notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1445 (c), which prohibits the removal of a civil action “arising under the workmen’s compensation laws” of a state.”

Alabama Mun. Workers Comp. Fund, Inc. v. P.R. Diamond Prods., Inc., 234 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2017).

Nabors v. City of Arlington, Tex., 688 F. Supp. 1165 (E.D. Tex. 1988).

Richardson v. Owens-Illinois Glass Container, Inc., 698 F. Supp. 673 (W.D. Tex. 1988).

Vasquez v. Dillard's, Inc., 2016 OK 89 (Okla. 2016).

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.