What is the forum-state defendant rule for removal based on diversity?

What is the forum-state defendant rule for removal based on diversity?

• A. Removal based on diversity is always proper if there is any complete diversity.
• B. If any defendant is a citizen of the forum state, removal based on diversity is improper (except in limited exceptions).
• C. Removal based on diversity is improper only if all defendants are citizens of the forum state.
• D. Removal is always governed by federal law and never by forum-state citizenship.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that removal based on diversity is not allowed if any defendant shares citizenship with the state where the case was filed. That forum-state defendant rule blocks removal to preserve the plaintiff’s chosen forum and prevent a local defendant from defeating removal through the state court forum. So, removal based on diversity is improper whenever any defendant is a citizen of the forum state, with only narrow, limited exceptions. The main real-world exception you’ll see is fraudulently joined defendants—where a forum-state defendant is joined only to defeat removal, and that defendant can be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity, allowing removal to proceed. Why the other statements don’t fit: diversity removal isn’t automatically proper just because there’s complete diversity; a forum-state defendant can ruin removal eligibility even if the others are diverse. It isn’t correct that removal is improper only if all defendants are from the forum state; even one forum-state citizen blocks removal. And while federal procedure governs removal, forum-state citizenship does matter for the threshold question of whether removal based on diversity is permissible in the first place.

The key idea is that removal based on diversity is not allowed if any defendant shares citizenship with the state where the case was filed. That forum-state defendant rule blocks removal to preserve the plaintiff’s chosen forum and prevent a local defendant from defeating removal through the state court forum. So, removal based on diversity is improper whenever any defendant is a citizen of the forum state, with only narrow, limited exceptions. The main real-world exception you’ll see is fraudulently joined defendants—where a forum-state defendant is joined only to defeat removal, and that defendant can be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity, allowing removal to proceed.

Why the other statements don’t fit: diversity removal isn’t automatically proper just because there’s complete diversity; a forum-state defendant can ruin removal eligibility even if the others are diverse. It isn’t correct that removal is improper only if all defendants are from the forum state; even one forum-state citizen blocks removal. And while federal procedure governs removal, forum-state citizenship does matter for the threshold question of whether removal based on diversity is permissible in the first place.