Snap Removal - National Case Law
By State and Federal District
Last Updated: June 14, 2022
Generally, the forum defendant rule precludes removal of a case to federal court where at least one of the named defendants is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. In some jurisdictions, however, a case that includes a forum defendant may nevertheless be removed to federal court when the removal is effectuated before the forum defendant is served. This procedure is known as “snap removal.” Snap removal is not a universally accepted practice, though, and the rules vary by jurisdiction. Due to the lack of uniformity, we have compiled a snapshot of the existing snap removal caselaw in one place, and this resource will be updated as new caselaw is rendered. To find the snap removal rules in your jurisdiction, simply click on the state that contains your district in the interactive map below.
Content is Not Legal Advice: The information offered in this marketing piece does not constitute legal advice. The specific advice of legal counsel is recommended before acting on any matter discussed herein.
Select A State
2nd Circuit Court
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| 2nd Cir. | Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 1339013 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2019) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendants removed case before any defendant was served) | 2019 |
3rd Circuit Court
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| 3rd Cir. | Encompass Insurance Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant, Inc., F.3d, 2018 WL 3999885 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2018) | Upheld snap removal for forum defendants and non-forum defendants (forum defendant (and only defendant in case) removed before being served, and even after sitting on acceptance of service until after removal) | 2018 |
5th Circuit Court
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| 5th Cir. | Texas Brine Co. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., 955 F. 3d 482 (5th Cir. 2020) | Upheld snap removal ("A non-forum defendant may remove an otherwise removable case even when a named defendant who has yet to be 'properly joined and served' is a citizen of the forum state.") | 2020 |
11th Circuit Court
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| 11th Cir. | Goodwin v. Reynolds, 757 F.3d 1216, 1221 (11th Cir. 2014) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before any defendant was served) | 2014 |
Alabama
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| UPHELD SNAP REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Northern District - Split within District | Bowman v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00831-AKK, 2019 WL 5080943, at *2–3, *6 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2019), appeal docketed, No. 19-14041 (11th Cir. Oct. 11, 2019) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before any defendants were served; court adopted approach where at least one defendant must have been properly joined/served before removal when forum defendant is involved) | 2019 |
| Goodwin v. Reynolds, 2012 WL 4732215, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 28, 2012) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2012 | |
| Middle District | Panthmanathan v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 2015 WL 4605757, at *1 (M.D. Ala. July 30, 2015) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendants were served) | 2015 |
| Southern District | Lemley v. Midwest Automation, Inc., 2009 WL 1211382, at *1 (S.D. Ala. May 1, 2009) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant removed only a minute before it was served) | 2009 |
Alaska
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| District | Seeds v. ERA Alaska, 2013 WL 11311389, at *3 (D. Alaska Nov. 4, 2013) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served, court noted that statute allows defendants to remove before Plaintiff serves forum defendants) | 2013 |
Arizona
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| District | Rogers v. Gosney, 2016 WL 4771376, at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 14, 2016) | Rejected snap removal ("status as an in-state defendant precludes removal jurisdiction, absent evidence of fraudulent joinder") | 2016 |
| Translavina v. MDS Pharma. Servs. Inc., 2011 WL 2132880, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2011) | Rejected snap removal by non-forum AND forum defendants | 2011 |
Arkansas
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| Eastern District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue | ||
| Western District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
California
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| DISTRICT SPLIT - UPHELD REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT |
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Central District - Split within District | Zirkin v. Shandy Media, Inc., 2019 WL 626138, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendants removed before being served) | 2019 |
| Mohammed v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 2009 WL 857517, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2009) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before any defendant had been served) | 2009 | |
| Eastern District Split within District | Morris v. Alza Corp., 2010 WL 2652473, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2010) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed prior to forum defendant being served) | 2010 |
| May v. Haas, 2012 WL 4961235, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served, but court noted that removal occurred 28 days after complaint was filed and defendant had not raced to courthouse - i.e. no gamesmanship) | 2012 | |
| Northern District - Split within District | Loewen v. McDonnell, 2019 WL 2364413, at *7-10 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant removed before any forum defendant had been served) (Note - court also noted that district has "consistently held a defendant may remove an action prior to receiving proper service, even when the defendant resides in the state in which the plaintiff filed the state claim" and that the district has not been perfectly consistent in its approach to 1441b2) | 2019 |
| In re Roundup Prod. Liab. Litig., 2019 WL 423129, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed prior to being served) | 2019 | |
| Southern District | Allen v. Eli Lilly and Co., 2010 WL 3489366, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2010 |
Colorado
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Connecticut
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| District | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision |
Delaware
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| District | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision |
Florida
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| DISTRICT SPLIT - UPHELD REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT |
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| Northern District | Bergmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 WL 9414108, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2016) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2016 |
| Middle District | North v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 600 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1269-70 (M.D. Fla. 2009) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant that has not yet been served may remove before forum defendant is served) | 2009 |
| Southern District - Split within District | Allison v. Apotex Corp., 2008 WL 11331976, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2008) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant/non-forum defendant removed together before forum defendant was served) | 2008 |
| Timbercreek Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. De Guardiola, 2019 WL 947279, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2019) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before any defendant was served | 2019 |
Georgia
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| Northern District - Split within District | Delaughder v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 2018 WL 6716047, at *1 & 3 & 7 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 21, 2018). | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before any defendant was served, court rejected Third Circuit's reasoning in Encompass) | 2018 |
| Rodgers v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., 2021 WL 2603710, at *2 (N.D. Ga. April 27, 2021) | Upheld snap removal (in-state defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2021 | |
| Middle District | Gibson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, 2010 WL 419393, at *2, 4 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2010) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2010 |
| Francis v. Great W. Casualty Co., 2018 WL 999679, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 21, 2018) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2018 | |
| Southern District - Split within District | Higgins v. City of Savannah, Ga., 2018 WL 2424138, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2018) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendants (all defendants were forum defendants) removed before any of them were served) | 2018 |
| McClain v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2013 WL 1399309, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 5, 2013) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendants removed before forum defendant was served) | 2013 |
Guam
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Hawaii
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| District | U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Martin,2015 WL 2227792, at *5 (D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2015) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before she was served, court noted decision based on forum defendant’s “gamesmanship”) | 2015 |
| District | Watanabe v. Lankford, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1219 (D. Haw. 2010) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before in-forum defendant was served) | 2010 |
Idaho
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Illinois
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| DISTRICT SPLIT - UPHELD REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT |
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Northern District - Split within District | DC v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 3d 991, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2018) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served) | 2018 |
| Vivas v. Boeing Co., 486 F. Supp. 2d 726, 734-35 (N.D. Ill. 2007) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before any defendant was served) | 2007 | |
| Central District | Test Drilling Service Co. v. Hanor Co., Inc., 322 F. Supp. 2d 953, 956 (C.D. Ill. 2003) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2006 |
| Southern District | Massey v. Cassens & Sons, Inc., 2006 WL 381943 at *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2006) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before any defendant was served) | 2006 |
| In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Prod. Liab. Litig., 2013 WL 656822, at *3-4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2013) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before any defendant was served) | 2013 | |
| Knightsbridge Mgmt., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 508687, at *2-4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2021) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served) | 2021 |
Indiana
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Northern District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue | ||
| Southern District | In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 2d 826, 828 (S.D. Ind. 2002) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2002 |
| Whipkey v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2020 WL 3248472, at *4 (S.D. Ind. June 16, 2020) | 2020 |
Iowa
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) | |
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| Northern District | Spreitzer Props. LLC, v. Travelers Corp., 2022 WL 1137091 (N.D. Iowa April 18, 2022) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2022 |
| Southern District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Kansas
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL - NO REMOVAL BEFORE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT IS PROPERLY JOINED AND SERVED |
| District | FTS Intern. Services LLC v. Caldwell Baker Co., 2013 WL 1305330, at *2-3 (D. Kan. Mar. 27, 2013) | Limited rejection of snap removal (Singular defendant (who resided in forum state) could not remove prior to service because 1441 requires at least one defendant to be served before removal is permitted) | 2013 |
Kentucky
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| DISTRICT SPLIT - UPHELD REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT |
| Eastern District - Limited Split within District | In re Darvocet, Darvon and Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 2012 WL 2919219, at *3 (E.D. Ky. July 17, 2012) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served) | 2012 |
| Darsie v. Cone, 2010 WL 2923285, at *5 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2010) | Appeared to support snap removal in dictum (where there is complete diversity, inclusion of unserved resident defendant does not defeat removal) | 2010 | |
| Western District - Split within District | Schilmiller v. Medtronic, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 721, 727 (W.D. Ky. 2014) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed (and had pattern of snap removal) before forum defendants were served) | 2014 |
| United Steel Supply, LLC v. Buller, 2013 WL 3790913, at *1 (W.D. Ky. July 19, 2013) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served) | 2013 |
Louisiana
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| Eastern District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | |
| Middle District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | |
| Western District | Upheld snap removal based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld snap removal based on Fifth Circuit's decision |
Maine
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have considered the issue |
Maryland
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| District - Split within District | Sommer v. BMW of N. Am. LLC, 2021 WL 1890651, at *2-3 (D. Md. May 11, 2021) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served; court noted lack of evidence of gamesmanship by plaintiff) | 2021 |
| Robertson v. Iuliano, 2011 WL 453618, at *3 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2011) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendants were served) | 2011 |
Massachusetts
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL - NO REMOVAL BEFORE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT IS PROPERLY JOINED AND SERVED |
| District | Gentile v. Biogen Idec, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 313, 322 (D. Mass. 2013) | Limited rejection of snap removal ("at least one defendant must have been served before removal can be effected") - If non-forum defendant is served first, the non-forum defendant may remove; but if forum defendant is served first, removal is not permitted. |
2013 |
| Adams v. Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC, 2015 WL 6182468, at *3-4 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2015) | 2015 |
Michigan
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| Eastern District - Limited Split within District | Murphy v. Inman, 2018 WL 8809349, at *13 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2018) | Upheld/rejected snap removal (at least one defendant must be served before removal may occur) | 2018 |
| Doe v. Doe, 2016 WL 9403994, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 22, 2016) | Rejected snap removal (singular defendant that is a forum-defendant not permitted to remove before being served) | 2016 | |
| Western District | Does not appear to have addressed issue |
Minnesota
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have considered the issue |
Mississippi
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| Northern District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | |
| Southern District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision |
Missouri
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| DISTRICT SPLIT - UPHELD REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT |
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Eastern District - Split within District | Johnson v. Precision Airmotive, LLC, 2007 WL 4289656 at *6 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 4, 2007) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendants removed before forum defendants were served) | 2007 |
| Terry v. J.D. Streett & Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3829201, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 23, 2010) | Upheld snap removal (singular forum defendant removed before it was served) | 2010 | |
| Perez v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1245 (E.D. Mo. 2012) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before either defendant was served) | 2012 | |
| Western District | Perfect Output of Kansas City, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., 2012 WL 2921852, at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 17, 2012) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2012 |
Montana
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| District - Split within District | Talbot v. Tokarski, No. CV-14-117-BLG-SPW, 2014 WL 5437035, at *2–3 (D. Mont. Oct. 24, 2014) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant (only defendant in case) removed before it was served) (Court held that at least one defendant must be served and joined before removal can be effected) | 2014 |
| Mahana v. Enerplus Res. U.S.A. Corp., No. CV-12-31-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2012 WL 1947101, at *3 (D. Mont. May 30, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV-12-31-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2012 WL 4748178 (D. Mont. Oct. 4, 2012) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2012 |
Nebraska
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Nevada
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| District of Nevada | Carrington Mortgage Serv., LLC v. Ticor Title of Nev., Inc., 2020 WL 3892786, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 10, 2020) | (Kind of) rejected snap removal (court declined to officially decide whether snap removal is "generally allowable" in the district but held that at least one party must be served prior to removal; non-forum defendant removed before it (and forum defendant) had been served | 2020 |
| District of Nevada | Metlife Home Loans, LLC v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Grp., Inc., 2021 WL 4096540, at *3-4 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2021) | Upheld snap removal (defendants, including one forum defendant, removed before any defendants were served) | 2021 |
New Hampshire
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL - NO REMOVAL BEFORE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT IS PROPERLY JOINED AND SERVED |
| District | R & N Check Corp. v. Bottomline Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-118-SM, 2013 WL 6055233, at *3 (D.N.H. Nov. 15, 2013) | Limited rejection of snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served, court remanded and held that at least one defendant must be served before removal can be effected) (i.e. at least one non-forum defendant must be served and must remove before any forum defendant is served) | 2013 |
New Jersey
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| District | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision See also Jackson v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., No. 19-18667 (JMV) (D.N.J. June 15, 2020) |
Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision** Jackson decision held that while snap removal under 1441(b) is permitted under Third Circuit opinion "regardless of whether that defendant acted to delay service," it is inaccurate to say that service is not complete for purposes of forum defendant rule until defendant actually receives notice of such service |
New Mexico
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have considered the issue |
New York
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| Northern District | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | |
| Eastern District | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | |
| Southern District | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | |
| Western District | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision |
North Carolina
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| UPHELD SNAP REMOVAL BY FORUM DEFENDANT VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Eastern District | Chace v. Bryant, 2010 WL 4496800, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2010) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendants removed before forum defendant was served) | 2010 |
| Middle District | Does not appear to have considered the issue | ||
| Western District | Annese v. Diversey, Inc., 2017 WL 2378808, at *2 (W.D.N.C. June 1, 2017) | Upheld snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served) |
North Dakota
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have considered the issue |
Ohio
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Northern District | Dominguez v. Acrux Staffing, 2011 WL 6326538 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2011) | Reject snap removal by forum defendants | 2011 |
| Southern District | Plymouth v. Dimension Serv. Corp., 2017 WL 726943, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2017) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant (only defendant in case) removed before it was served) | 2017 |
Oklahoma
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL - NO REMOVAL UNLESS/UNTIL PLAINTIFF HAS HAD REASONABLE TIME TO SERVE |
| Eastern District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue | ||
| Northern District | Magallan v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 228 F. Supp.3d 1257, 1260-61 (N.D. Okla. 2017) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2017 |
| Western District | Woods v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 917284, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2020) | Upheld/Rejected snap removal (no removal allowed - non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) - Upheld "judicially crafted exception" to "properly joined and served" language such that snap pre-service removal is allowed to circumvent forum defendant rule UNLESS "Plaintiffs did not have a reasonable opportunity to serve [defendant] before remov[al]." |
2020 |
Oregon
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL – REMOVING DEFENDANT MUST BE SERVED PRIOR TO REMOVING |
| District of Oregon | McAboy v. Intel Corp., 2022 WL 1519081 (D. Or. May 13, 2022) | Limited rejection of snap removal, required removing defendant to be served prior to removing, but held that “Pre-Service or ‘Snap’ Removal is Not Per Se Prohibited Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441” | 2022 |
Pennsylvania
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| Eastern District | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision | |
| Middle District | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision | |
| Western District | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Third Circuit's decision |
Puerto Rico
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Rhode Island
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| District | DHLNH, LLC, v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 251, 319 F. Supp. 3d 604, 606 (D.R.I. June 18, 2018) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served) | 2018 |
South Carolina
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| District - Split within District | Fisher v. Pelstring, 2009 WL 10664813, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2009) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2009 |
| The Turtle Factory Building Corp., 2021 WL 688697, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2021) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2021 |
South Dakota
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue |
Tennessee
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| Eastern District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue | ||
| Middle District | Little v. Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., 251 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1221 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) | Rejected snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2017 |
| Western District - Split within District | Linder v. Medtronic, Inc., 2013 WL 5486770, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 30, 2013) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before any defendant was served) | 2013 |
| Montgomery v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 2014 WL 12611256, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. June 26, 2014) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served and only one day after complaint was filed) | 2014 |
Texas
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| Eastern District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | 2014 |
| Northern District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | |
| Southern District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | |
| Western District | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Fifth Circuit's decision |
Utah
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL - NO REMOVAL UNLESS/UNTIL PLAINTIFF HAS HAD REASONABLE TIME TO SERVE |
| District | Flandro v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., No. 2:18-CV-697, 2019 WL 1574811, at *6–7 (D. Utah Apr. 11, 2019) | Plaintiffs are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to serve the forum defendant before the case can be removed | 2019 |
Vermont
| UPHELD VIA CIRCUIT COURT OPINION |
| District | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision | Upheld based on Second Circuit's decision |
Virginia
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| Eastern District | Campbell v. Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc., 925 F. Supp. 2d 800, 809–10 (E.D. Va. 2013) | Snap removal okay for non-forum defendants but not for forum defendants | 2013 |
| Western District | Does not appear to have considered the issue |
Washington
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| LIMITED REJECTION OF SNAP REMOVAL - NO REMOVAL BEFORE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT IS PROPERLY JOINED AND SERVED |
| Eastern District | Does not appear to have considered the issue | ||
| Western District | Pratt v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 2021 WL 1910885, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 12, 2021) | Limited rejection of snap removal (forum defendant removed before it was served, court remanded and held that at least one defendant must be served before removal can be effected; rejected all three Circuit Court decisions as overlooking pronoun “any” and failing to consider nuances in purpose and history of forum defendant rule | 2021 |
Washington DC
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| District | Doe v. Daversa Partners, 2021 WL 736734, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2021) | Upheld snap removal (defendants, including both forum and non-forum defendant, removed before anyone was served) | 2021 |
West Virginia
| UPHELD VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| DISTRICT SPLIT |
| Northern District | Vitatoe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2008 WL 3540462, at *5 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 13, 2008) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before any defendants were served) | 2008 |
| Southern District - Split within District | Blankenship v. Napolitano, 2019 WL 3226909 (S.D.W.Va. July 17, 2019) | Upheld snap removal (non-forum defendant removed before forum defendant was served) | 2019 |
| Phillips Construction, LLC v. Daniels Law Firm, 93 F. Supp. 3d 544, 554-55 (S.D. W. Va. 2015) | Limited rejection of snap removal (only forum defendants in case, and they removed before they were served) (Note - court's holding is limited to "cases involving only resident defendants" such that the forum defendant rule bars forum defendants from removing before being served) |
2015 |
Wisconsin
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| REJECTED VIA DISTRICT COURT OPINION (no split) |
| Eastern District | Does not appear to have addressed the issue | ||
| Western District | Hoffman Bikes, Inc. v. Pacific Cycle, Inc., 2017 WL 4174923, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 20, 2017) | Rejected snap removal (forum defendant (and only defendant in case) removed before it was served, approximately 1.5 hours after complaint was filed) | 2017 |
Wyoming
| HAS NOT ADDRESSED ISSUE |
| District | Does not appear to have considered the issue |
Contacts
-
J. Benjamin Broadhead
Associate
-
Hannah R. Anderson
Associate
-
Kip S.M. McDonald
Partner