Discussion Thread: Choice of Forum Reply

Nancy Cortez

     In the case of Susan Price and Stuff-Mart, Susan decides to file the lawsuit in the state court of Arkansas where her civil rights were violated by the defendant Stuff-Mart. Susan Price is from Arkansas and Stuff-Mart is an incorporated business in Arkansas, therefore both establishing state citizenship.  Traditionally, the plaintiff, Susan Price, is the one that chooses where she will file her lawsuit assuming that the chosen court has proper subject matter jurisdiction of the case either in a state court or a federal court. Susan Prices rights were violated under a federal civil rights law. Both state and federal courts have the jurisdiction to hear her case. Susan Price could have originally chosen to file her lawsuit in federal court as federal courts have proper subject matter jurisdiction over the violation of civil rights under federal civil rights law (Glannon, 1018). Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), Stuff-Mart could have remove to federal court under this section. However, there is an exception which is rule 28 U.S. Code 1441 (b)(2). This rule is referred to as the home rule. This rule states that a defendant cannot remove a case if they are a citizen of the same state. Since both Susan and Stuff-Mart are both citizens of Arkansas, the case cannot be remove on basis of diversity jurisdiction. Stuff-mart does not have the need to be protected from local prejudice since Stuff-Mart is from Arkansas, as is Susan Price. The rational for removal is that Stuff-Mart as well as Susan Price should have to option to choose federal court cases within federal jurisdictions. Although both parties should have access to this, the criteria it must meet in order to remove has to be followed by statues (Glannon, 2018). In this case, I dont believe Stuff-Mart met the criteria to remove his case to federal court.

References

Joseph W. Glannon, Examples and Explanations for Civil Procedure  67, 68 (8th ed. 2018).