42 U.S.C. § 1446
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: John Hunter, Inc. v. Great Impressions Apparel, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 644 (N.D. Tex. 2002).
John Hunter, Inc. v. Great Impressions Apparel, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 644 (N.D. Tex. 2002). “Under 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (b), “The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the Defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading.”
Danielle Ex Rel. Komando v. Adriazola, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants presently challenge this Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint.”
Longden v. Philip Morris, et al., 2003 DNH 140 (D.N.H. 2003). “) Because no qualifying event has occurred that would allow removal under 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (b), and because the facts of this case do not support an equitable exception to the one-year limit on removal, plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Remand (document n o .”
Robert Brockway v. Evergreen Int'l Trust, 496 F. App'x 357 (4th Cir. 2012). “On April 29, 2010, prior to the state circuit court ruling on these motions, Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1446 . 3 On May 17, 2010, Appellant filed a motion to remand on the ground…”
L. v. Benton (N.D. Ala. 2021). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).”
Mid-Am. Mgmt. Corp. v. Roberts (S.D. Ind. 2023). “The "complaint" is a "Notice of Claim for Possession of Real Estate and Summons" filed in Marion County Small Claims Court alleging that Defendants (1) "unlawfully hold[] over and retain[]" an apartment from Plaintiff Mid-America Management Corporation and (2) that they owe…”
Allen v. Bulk Logistics, Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2020). “The statute is clear: if the initial Complaint was not removable, a new thirty-day period of removability is initiated upon receipt of a document “from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.”
Duncan v. Walmart, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “17 District courts in this circuit have “generally held that oral statements are not an ‘other paper’ 18 which triggers removal under 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (b).” Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.”
Lvnv Funding LLC v. Peck (S.D. Ind. 2025). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1446 ; S.D. Ind. L. R. 81-2(d).”
Velocity Investments, LLC v. Peck (S.D. Ind. 2025). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1446 ; S.D. Ind. L. R. 81-2(d).”
Abdullah v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (c)(1). Here, more than two years passed from the time that Plaintiffs filed claims on March 24, 2022, until October 31, 2024, when Abbott filed the instant notices of removal—a span that would appear to bar invocation of § 1446(b)(3) as a basis for removal.”
Carter v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1446 (c)(1). Here, more than two years passed from the time that Plaintiffs filed claims on March 24, 2022, until October 31, 2024, when Abbott filed the instant notices of removal—a span that would appear to bar invocation of § 1446(b)(3) as a basis for removal.”
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.