A pedestrian from State A sues a motorcyclist from State B in State A’s state court. The motorcyclist removes to the federal district court covering the same geographic area. Is removal proper based on complete diversity?

A pedestrian from State A sues a motorcyclist from State B in State A’s state court. The motorcyclist removes to the federal district court covering the same geographic area. Is removal proper based on complete diversity?

• A. Yes, because complete diversity is satisfied between the parties.
• B. Yes, because the case was filed in the district that the court geographically covers.
• C. No, because the motorcyclist is a citizen of State B.
• D. No, because the accident occurred in the Western District of State A.

Answer: (A)

Diversity removal hinges on complete diversity: every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant. Here, there is one plaintiff from State A and one defendant from State B, so no plaintiff shares a state citizenship with any defendant. That satisfies complete diversity, making removal to federal court permissible (assuming the amount in controversy is met and there’s no other bar like the forum defendant rule). The fact that the action started in State A’s state court doesn’t prevent removal; removal to the federal district court that covers the relevant geographic area is appropriate when the case could have been brought there originally in federal court. The place where the accident occurred does not affect diversity analysis. The forum defendant rule isn’t triggered here because the defendant isn’t a citizen of the forum state (State A).

Diversity removal hinges on complete diversity: every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant. Here, there is one plaintiff from State A and one defendant from State B, so no plaintiff shares a state citizenship with any defendant. That satisfies complete diversity, making removal to federal court permissible (assuming the amount in controversy is met and there’s no other bar like the forum defendant rule).

The fact that the action started in State A’s state court doesn’t prevent removal; removal to the federal district court that covers the relevant geographic area is appropriate when the case could have been brought there originally in federal court. The place where the accident occurred does not affect diversity analysis. The forum defendant rule isn’t triggered here because the defendant isn’t a citizen of the forum state (State A).