#ourt should dismiss the motions. :art o& this case can sta$ in &ederal court as there is &ederal uestion here under the 'ederal Tort #laims Act. ut part o& the case cannot survive in &ederal court alone as there is no diversit$ between the plainti&&s and de&endants, who are &rom #ali&ornia. This appears to then be a problem o& supplemental jurisdiction. The &acts seem to arise &rom common nucleus o& operative &act. The claims arise &rom plane crash so there is a common nucleus. Anne also has &ederal uestion jurisdiction in &ederal court, so supplemental jurisdiction eists to consider state law uestions.
D.1e"oal and 1e"and of State Court Actions
An action brou*ht in state court ma$ be removed b$ the de&endant to &ederal court i& the cause ori*inall$ could have been brou*ht b$ the plainti&& in &ederal court. b.?ceptions+(1) i& : could have brou*ht the case in &ederal court onl$ based on diversit$ jurisdiction " reuest &or removal on *rounds o& diversit$ jurisdiction will not be *ranted i& an$ o& the de&endants in the case is a citi>en o& the &orum state () i& there are multiple de&endants, all de&endants must join in removin* to &ederal court c.Timin* issues+ the case should be removed within = da$s. I& the case becomes removable solel$ on diversit$, it cannot be removed i& it has been more than a $ear. .
+ &ederal court would remand i& case was removed improperl$ or ma$ &ind a &orum selection provision en&orceable.. motion to remand must be made within = da$s o& removal notice and de&endant has burden o& proo& that removal was proper.
Fohn resides in the eastern district o& Gew Hor%. Be &iles a lawsuit a*ainst his ph$sician, 7r. Da$, &or medical malpractice in state court. 7r. Da$9s o&&ices are located in the southern district o& Gew Hor%, but he is domiciled in Gew Ferse$. Fohn9s action demands over ;1==,=== in dama*es. a$ 7r. Da$ have Fohn9s action removed to &ederal court8 I& so, to which court will it most li%el$ be removed8The case could have been brou*ht in &ederal court as there is diversit$ o& citi>enship and amount in controvers$ reuirement is met. 7r. Da$ is a citi>en o& Gew Ferse$. Fohn is resident o& Gew Hor% and sued the doctor in GH. I& a plainti&& could have brou*ht the case in &ederal court, a reuest &or removal on *rounds o& diversit$ jurisdiction will not be *ranted i& de&endants in the case is a citi>en o& the &orum state. Bere, we seem to not have this problem i& 7r. Da$ is onl$ &ound to be a citi>en o& Gew Ferse$. Be can remove the case to the &ederal court that *overns same *eo*raphical area as the state court where he has been sued.
1.hat a writ o&
is and what it is not+ writ is a civil action a*ainst jailer that alle*es that reason &or con&inement is de&ective. It is not an appeal or to continue the criminal case. .!round &or *rantin* writs o&
+ violation o& due process, violation o& ri*ht o& sel&incrimination, violation o& ri*ht a*ainst double jeopard$, violation o& the ri*ht a*ainst cruel and unusual punishment Limits+ ehaustion o& state remedies and within one $ear o& &inal jud*ment o& custod$