Legal Definitions - motion to remand

A motion to remand is a formal request made by a party in a lawsuit, asking a federal court to send a case back to the state court where it was originally filed. This type of motion is typically filed after a case has been moved from state court to federal court (a process known as "removal"). The party making the motion argues that the federal court should not hear the case, usually because it lacks the legal authority (jurisdiction) to do so, or because the procedures for transferring the case to federal court were not correctly followed.

Here are some examples illustrating when a motion to remand might be filed:

• Example 1: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (No Federal Question)

  Imagine a small business owner in Florida sues a local contractor, also from Florida, in a Florida state court. The lawsuit alleges that the contractor breached their agreement by performing shoddy work on a renovation project, causing significant financial losses. The contractor, perhaps hoping for a perceived advantage, decides to "remove" the case to a federal court in Florida, claiming the dispute is complex enough for federal attention.

  The business owner would likely file a motion to remand. The lawsuit is based purely on Florida state contract law, involves parties from the same state, and does not raise any issues related to federal laws or the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the federal court lacks "subject matter jurisdiction" – it doesn't have the legal authority to hear a case that is entirely a matter of state law. The motion would successfully argue for the case to be returned to the state court, which is the proper forum.

• Example 2: Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction (Parties from Same State)

  Consider a scenario where a resident of Texas sues another resident of Texas in a Texas state court over a boundary dispute involving their adjacent properties. The defendant, for strategic reasons, attempts to remove the case to federal court, mistakenly believing that all civil cases can be heard there.

  The plaintiff would file a motion to remand. Federal courts typically have "diversity jurisdiction" over cases between citizens of *different* states, provided the amount of money or value at stake exceeds a certain threshold. Since both the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state (Texas), there is no diversity of citizenship, and thus no basis for federal jurisdiction. The motion would successfully argue that the federal court lacks the authority to hear this specific type of state-law dispute between co-citizens.

• Example 3: Procedural Defect in Removal (Missed Deadline)

  A plaintiff files a personal injury lawsuit in state court. The defendant receives the official lawsuit papers on March 1st. Federal law specifies that a defendant must file a notice to remove the case to federal court within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading. The defendant, however, waits until April 15th to file the removal notice.

  The plaintiff would file a motion to remand. Even if the federal court *would* have had jurisdiction over the case (e.g., if the parties were from different states and the damages sought were high enough), the defendant failed to follow the strict procedural rules for removal by missing the 30-day deadline. The motion would highlight this procedural defect, arguing that because the removal process was not correctly executed, the case must be sent back to the state court.