The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal
The Authors John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country. Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School. Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal "A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the [...]
