(B) a claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute, the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B). (2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), the district court shall sever from the action all claims described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the action was removed. Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent to the removal under paragraph (1). D can remove and the federal court will keep the federal action and remand the unrelated state law action this is good otherwise Ps could make federal actions unremovable very easily – NOW Issue preclusion If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential to the decision then the earlier determination of the issue precludes relitigation of the same issue by someone who was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier litigation issue preclusion is about issues that were actually litigated not about issues that – should have been litigated compare this with claim preclusion, which precludes actions that should have been litigated in the earlier suit Little v Blue Goose Motor Coach SCt Ill 1931 - Dr Little collided with a Blue Goose bus
(B) a claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute, the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B). (2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), the district court shall sever from the action all claims described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the action was removed. Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent to the removal under paragraph (1). D can remove and the federal court will keep the federal action and remand the unrelated state law action this is good – otherwise Ps could make federal actions unremovable very easily NOW Issue preclusion If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential to the decision then the earlier determination of the issue precludes relitigation of the same issue by someone who was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier litigation issue preclusion is about issues that were actually litigated – not about issues that should have been litigated compare this with claim preclusion, which precludes actions that should have been litigated in the earlier suit Little v Blue Goose Motor Coach SCt Ill 1931 - Dr Little collided with a Blue Goose bus
2014CivProNotes29.docx