25 Cited authorities

Mesa v. California
489 U.S. 121 (1989) Cited 673 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding § 1442 "cannot independently support Art. III `arising under' jurisdiction," and, thus, removal thereunder "must be predicated upon the averment of a federal defense"
Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele
757 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2014) Cited 1,059 times
Holding that it is error to construe a motion to dismiss as a "factual attack" where the defendant has not "presented competing facts"
Kircher v. Putnam Funds
547 U.S. 633 (2006) Cited 331 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the bar on appellate review of district court orders remanding cases to state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), applies to cases arising under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 in the absence of an "expressly" provided "clear statutory command" to the contrary
United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd.
540 U.S. 736 (2004) Cited 134 times
Holding that a provision of antitrust law, which applied to any "person" including states and foreign governments, did not apply to the government or USPS
Bullock v. Napolitano
666 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2012) Cited 100 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a Title VII claim removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc.
724 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2013) Cited 74 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the contractor's assertion that the military was a proximate cause of the alleged injury did not present a political question under a joint-and-several liability regime, and that even if proportional liability applied, the plaintiffs could proceed on any damages claim that did not implicate proportional liability
State of Nebraska v. Bentson
146 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 51 times
Holding that the federal removal statute allows a covered person to remove an action to district court based on the defense of sovereign immunity
Conklin v. Kane
634 F. App'x 69 (3d Cir. 2015) Cited 14 times
Explaining that derivative jurisdiction still applies to removals under § 1442 but that it is better understood as a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule
Thompson v. Wheeler
898 F.2d 406 (3d Cir. 1990) Cited 47 times
Holding that "failure to file an administrative claim as ordinarily required by 28 U.S.C. §2675 is not a bar to the third party complaint"
Turturro v. Agusta Aerospace Corporation
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2894 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2010) Cited 11 times
Commenting that "the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction is alive and well in this circuit"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,714 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,350 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Section 2671 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 2671 Cited 9,538 times 6 Legal Analyses
Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "
Section 2401 - Time for commencing action against United States
28 U.S.C. § 2401 Cited 6,277 times 55 Legal Analyses
Providing that a tort claim against the United States must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues
Section 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2679 Cited 5,417 times 5 Legal Analyses
Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees
Section 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
28 U.S.C. § 1442 Cited 5,233 times 89 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"
Rule 81 - Applicability of the Rules in General; Removed Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 81 Cited 3,771 times 6 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in those proceedings: is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions."
Section 14.9 - Final denial of claim
28 C.F.R. § 14.9 Cited 185 times
Stating the notice of denial "may include a statement of the reasons for the denial"

Matthews v. Chorno et al

25 Cited authorities

Holding § 1442 "cannot independently support Art. III `arising under' jurisdiction," and, thus, removal thereunder "must be predicated upon the averment of a federal defense"

Holding that it is error to construe a motion to dismiss as a "factual attack" where the defendant has not "presented competing facts"

Holding that the bar on appellate review of district court orders remanding cases to state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), applies to cases arising under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 in the absence of an "expressly" provided "clear statutory command" to the contrary

Holding that a provision of antitrust law, which applied to any "person" including states and foreign governments, did not apply to the government or USPS

Holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a Title VII claim removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442

Holding that the federal removal statute allows a covered person to remove an action to district court based on the defense of sovereign immunity

Explaining that derivative jurisdiction still applies to removals under § 1442 but that it is better understood as a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule

Holding that "failure to file an administrative claim as ordinarily required by 28 U.S.C. §2675 is not a bar to the third party complaint"

Commenting that "the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction is alive and well in this circuit"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "

Providing that a tort claim against the United States must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues

Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees

Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"

Stating the notice of denial "may include a statement of the reasons for the denial"