Latest Case: Bowling v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n (Civil Procedure)

Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Good News

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

In this two-part series of columns, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan discusses some new reasons for guarded optimism that Americans are beginning to recognize—and thus might be able to mitigate—the danger Donald Trump represents to American democracy. In this first part, Buchanan grounds his guarded optimism in Joe Biden’s expressly voicing concern that Trump will not leave the White House if he loses the election.

Read More

How the President and Attorney General Could Have Avoided the Geoffrey Berman Debacle

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the recent dispute over the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and explains what President Trump and Attorney General Barr could have done to avoid the problem altogether. Amar describes a process that, if followed, could have allowed the administration to appoint their first-choice candidate without causing the controversy in which it now finds itself.

Read More

Bowling v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Docket: 17-11953

Opinion Date: June 23, 2020

Judge: Rosenbaum

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

After the district court upheld third-party counterclaim defendants' removal of this case from Alabama state court, the Supreme Court issued Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019), which held that third-party counterclaim defendants cannot remove a "civil action" under 28 U.S.C. 1441(c). The Eleventh Circuit held that Home Depot makes the holding in Carl Heck Engineers, Inc. v. Lafourche Parish Police Jury, 622 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1980), no longer good law. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of third-party counterclaim plaintiffs Philip and Jennie Bowling's motion to remand, which was based in substantial part on Carl Heck. The court explained that the analysis in Home Depot leaves no doubt that, even if Carl Heck involves section 1441(c), it is no longer good law because it is impossible to read the statute as a whole and conclude that the same term in sections 1441(a) and 1441(c) has different meanings. Furthermore, section 1441(c) does not provide for removal jurisdiction of the Bowlings' claims against the third-party counterclaim defendants here because section 1441(a) is the operative clause that authorizes removal, and section 1441(c) merely adds a condition for certain types of civil cases. Because the district court erred in denying the Bowlings' motion to remand, the court held that the district court's order granting third-party counterclaim defendants' motion for summary judgment must be vacated, and the entire case must be remanded to state court.