Tuesday audio. Court of Appeals papers due Tuesday. Our final make-up (hopefully) will be Monday, October 14.
We discussed the benefits of the WPC; what are the drawbacks or criticisms of the WPC, especially given the purposes of federal question jurisdiction (uniformity, expertise, respect)? When is district court jurisdiction exclusion and when concurrent and why?
What is the purpose of allowing removal (of, by definition, state-law cases) under § 1442 and § 1443--why allow removal in these situations and what do they cover? Review §§ 1455, 1446, and 1447 on the process of removal, including appealability of remand. When a defendant files a notice of removal, where is the case? What happens then?
How would removal and resolution work (if at all) for the following actions in state court, in light of § 1441 and § 1454:
1) A sues X on state law claims; X asserts a counterclaim for Trademark infringement
2) A sues X on state law claims; X asserts a counterclaim for antitrust violations
3) A sues X on state law claims; X asserts a counterclaim for Copyright infringement
Consider the following: A sues X in state court; X removes under § 1441(a) (arguing the case arises under federal law) and § 1442(a)(1) (arguing that it operated under control of the federal government); the district court remands, finding removal improper under either statute. Can X appeal the § 1442 determination, the § 1441 determination, both, or neither? What's the key language in § 1447(d) that leads to that conclusion.
Prep all of Arising Under. When does an action on the face of the WPC arise under federal law, under Mims and American Well Works? Why extend it beyond that core? How is the core expanded in Grable and Gunn?
