Robert H. Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company Kenneth L. Brown

Good Law
425 F.3d 689·2005 WL 2456929·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21632
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 6, 200504-35115California4,094 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

We consider for the first time in this circuit whether the jurisdictional facts supporting removal of an action from state court to federal court must be apparent from the face of the initial pleading or whether the mere spectre of removability triggers a duty of inquiry. Specifically, is removability determined by the face of the initial pleading or by defendant’s knowledge, constructive or otherwise, of the requisite jurisdictional facts? Our interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 leads us to join our sister circuits in holding that the “thirty day time period [for removal] ... starts to run from defendant’s receipt of the initial pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its face” :the facts necessary for federal court jurisdiction. Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir.1992); see also Lovern v. General Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160, 162 (4th Cir.1997) (“[W]e will allow the court to rely on the face of-the initial pleading and on the documents exchanged in the case by the parties to determine when the defendant had notice of the grounds for removal, requiring that those grounds be apparent within the four corners of the initial pleading or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.