A pedestrian from State A sues a motorcyclist from State B in a state court in State A that sits within the federal E.D. of State A. The motorcyclist removes to the federal court in the same district. Is removal proper?

A pedestrian from State A sues a motorcyclist from State B in a state court in State A that sits within the federal E.D. of State A. The motorcyclist removes to the federal court in the same district. Is removal proper?

• A. Yes, because complete diversity exists and removal is proper by the defendant
• B. Yes, because the case could have been brought in federal court originally
• C. No, because the motorcyclist is a citizen of State B and cannot remove
• D. No, because the accident occurred in a different district

Answer: (A)

Removal is proper because the federal court would have original jurisdiction based on diversity: the plaintiff is a citizen of State A and the motorcyclist is a citizen of State B, so there is complete diversity. The in-state defendant rule does not block removal here since no defendant is a citizen of the forum state (State A). Assuming the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the case could have been brought in federal court originally, so removal to the federal court in the same district is allowed. The location of the accident in a different district is irrelevant to removal. Therefore, removal is proper.

Removal is proper because the federal court would have original jurisdiction based on diversity: the plaintiff is a citizen of State A and the motorcyclist is a citizen of State B, so there is complete diversity. The in-state defendant rule does not block removal here since no defendant is a citizen of the forum state (State A). Assuming the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the case could have been brought in federal court originally, so removal to the federal court in the same district is allowed. The location of the accident in a different district is irrelevant to removal. Therefore, removal is proper.