In D.D.C., Remand Arguments Are “No Match” For Plain Language Supporting Snap Removal


Pre-service removal—known colloquially as “snap removal”—continues to be adopted in more jurisdictions. For a basic explanation of snap removal, see Faegre Drinker’s prior posts here.

In Doe v. Daversa Partners, 2021 WL 736734, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2021), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia joins the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal affirming the practice of snap removal. Noting that the D.C. Circuit had not yet opined on the issue, the Daversa court provided a thorough analysis and rationale for refusing remand under the circumstances.

The plaintiff in Daversa, a citizen of New York, filed the action against two defendants, one a citizen of Connecticut and the other a citizen of Washington, D.C.  Two days after the suit was filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, and before service was effected on either defendant, the two defendants jointly removed the case to federal district court.  Applying the “plain meaning of § 1441(b)(2),” the U.S. District Court concluded that plaintiff’s remand motion was not warranted since the forum defendant had not been properly joined and served at the time of removal.

In its decision, the U.S. District Court declined to adopt the plaintiff’s contention that the forum defendant rule requires service of at least one defendant prior to removal.  Rather, the court reasoned that plaintiff’s interpretation was “unsupportable” and “animated by the view that any reading of the statutory language that permits ‘snap removal’ renders the text [of § 1441(b)(2)] ‘nonsensical’ or ‘superfluous.’”  And, the court similarly noted that any solution to a policy disagreement over snap removal lies with Congress, not the court.

The Daversa decision reflects the latest example of federal district courts upholding the practice of snap removal. In an ever-changing landscape like this one, you can stay up to date on the status in your jurisdiction by using Faegre Drinker’s interactive snap removal map.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

About the Author: Kip S.M. McDonald

Kip McDonald defends and counsels clients in product liability, multidistrict and mass tort litigation matters nationwide. He collaborates with clients to develop defense strategies and manages the details, from pre-suit negotiation, pretrial proceedings — including international e-discovery — to expert discovery and trial.

About the Author: Hannah R. Anderson

Hannah Anderson brings enthusiasm and a critical eye to Faegre Drinker’s litigation team. She represents domestic and international manufacturing companies, medical device manufacturers, and other corporate clients in both product liability/mass tort and environmental litigation.

About the Author: J. Benjamin Broadhead

Ben Broadhead is a product liability associate residing in Faegre Drinker’s Indianapolis office. Ben focuses his practice on medical device litigation and mass torts.

©2024 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Privacy Policy