U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 89— DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 1448

Process after removal

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

In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which process served proves to be defective, such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.

This section shall not deprive any defendant upon whom process is served after removal of his right to move to remand the case.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 352 cases (166 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Clifton Whidbee v. Pierce Cnty., 857 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clifton Whidbee v. Pierce Cnty., 857 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “First, he argues that once his case was removed to federal court, he had an additional 120 days to serve process on the defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1448 and Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
UWM Student Ass'n v. Michael Lovell, 888 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1448 , which provides: In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which process served…”
John T. Witherow v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., a Corp., 530 F.2d 160 (3rd Cir. 1976). · cites it 6× “4(h) 1 or 28 U.S.C. § 1448 . 2 The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and certified the question for appeal pursuant to 28 U.”
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999). · cites it 2× “6-7, 28 U. S. C. § 1448 does not support the Eleventh Circuit's position.”
Minter Ex Rel. Minter v. Showcase Sys., Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 597 (S.D. Miss. 2009). · cites it 9× “While the parties disagree as to the proper resolution of this issue, they agree that the issue is to be resolved by reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1448 , which provides: In all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of…”
Wallace v. Microsoft Corp., 596 F.3d 703 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “One of the federal laws governing removed cases is 28 U.S.C. § 1448 which provides for process after removal.”
Workman v. Bissessar, 275 F. Supp. 3d 263 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 3× “Rather, under 28 U.S.C. § 1448 , the plaintiff in a removed action who has not served or perfected process may either “complete[ ]” service under state law or may obtain “new process” and may then effect service “in the same manner as in cases originally filed in” federal court.”
Marilyn M. Marshall v. Mikel Warwick, 155 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1448 provides in part: In all eases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which…”
Listle v. Milwaukee Cnty., 926 F. Supp. 826 (E.D. Wis. 1996). · cites it 10× “Service of process after removal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1448 which provides: In all eases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been…”
Atl. Nat'l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins., 621 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Hawley removed the case, Lebanon Hardboard and Tritalent filed a motion in district court to remand the case to state court.”
City of Clarksdale Ex Rel. Clarksdale Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 428 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Title 28 U.S.C. § 1448 permits cured service on a defendant after removal.”
Baumeister v. New Mexico Comm'n for the Blind, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (D.N.M. 2006). · cites it 4× “MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE Where service of process in state court is defective or incomplete, 28 U.S.C. § 1448 and Fed. R. Crv. P. 4(m) give the plaintiff 120 days from the date defendant removes the case to federal court in which the imperfect or defective…”
Show all 352 citing cases →
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.