Why Trying to Remove a Probate Case to Federal Court Almost Always Fails

Johnson v Ng shows how unforgiving federal law is when a party removes a case late or without a real basis for federal jurisdiction. The defendant removed a Virginia state case to federal court. The plaintiffs quickly moved to remand. They argued the removal was untimely and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court agreed on both and sent the case back to state court.

The defendant appealed, but the Fourth Circuit explained why it could not even reach the merits. Under section 1447 c and section 1447 d, an appellate court cannot review a remand based on untimeliness or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Those two grounds cover almost every flawed removal. Once the district court uses them, the remand is essentially locked in.

The defendant tried to rely on the narrow exception for cases removed under section 1443, the civil rights removal statute. That exception failed. The defendant never cited section 1443 in the notice of removal and the case had nothing to do with racial equality.

With no applicable exception, the Fourth Circuit held it had no power to review the remand and dismissed the appeal. The lesson is simple. Removal requires speed and a solid jurisdictional hook. Without both, a remand order will stick and no federal appellate court can reopen the door.

If you have questions about probate, conservatorship, or multi-state estate issues, feel free to call me or schedule a time.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and you should consult a licensed attorney for advice regarding your specific situation.