“Rog and Pete” by Jean-Luc, subject to Creative Commons license.
Updated post (February 27, 2015): As they were not too long ago in the post below, Bassford Remele lawyers got schooled again this week on the forum defendant rule, this time as counsel for defendant Ear, Nose and Throat SpecialtyCare of Minnesota, P.A…. Better them than you, right? Don’t forget the forum defendant rule.
Original post (January 28, 2015): Citizens from different states on opposite sides with claims in which over $75,000 is at stake can fight it out in federal court rather than state court based on what is called “diversity jurisdiction.” Except when they cannot. Without certain prerequisites, they cannot even when both the plaintiff and the defendant are, like, “It’s cool, Judge. We all like you and we want to stay here in this court. We like it here!” They cannot when an out-of-state plaintiff brings a lawsuit in state court against an in-state defendant and the in-state defendant seeks to remove the case to federal court. (The defendant cannot rightly claim fear of some kind of state court bias, right? What federalism concern would the in-state defendant have?)
An anonymous lawsuit against Shattuck-St. Mary alleging abuse sound familiar? Presumably the case of Doe AB and the case of Doe XY will both be headed back to Rice County District Court, from which they were both removed.
Who will pay for these futile round-trips? Who should pay for them? Maybe in some sense the round-trips created some efficiencies somehow (except for the federal court that had to host guests, some for over one year, who did not have tickets of admission)?