By
Removal decisions sit at the intersection of legal strategy, claim handling, and early case assessment. In Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, the Supreme Court gave defense teams a straightforward reminder: the 30-day deadline for removing a civil action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) is mandatory and cannot be equitably tolled.
Enbridge was served with the Michigan Attorney General’s complaint on July 12, 2019, but did not remove within 30 days. Instead, it litigated in state court for years, including briefing dispositive motions and arguing federal preemption, before attempting removal 887 days after service.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the removal was untimely. Although the deadline is not jurisdictional, the Court concluded that the statute’s text, structure, and context show Congress did not want courts to apply open-ended equitable tolling. The case, therefore, returned to Michigan state court.
The message from the Supreme Court is clear and practical. The potential for removal to federal court must be evaluated immediately upon service—not after pleadings mature, dispositive motions are briefed, or state-court rulings clarify the stakes.
Product liability cases may present fast-moving jurisdictional issues, including diversity, federal officer, federal enclave, preemption, bankruptcy, or multi-party removal questions. Enbridge makes clear that a defendant cannot treat the initial 30-day removal window as a placeholder while it explores the state-court path.
This decision underscores the importance of a coordinated and timely intake process. Upon receipt of a new matter, claims professionals, national counsel, local counsel, and risk managers must work together to promptly evaluate key threshold issues. including service dates, citizenship of the parties, consent requirements, forum-defendant considerations, and whether the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional threshold, all before the 30-day removal deadline expires.
Enbridge does not eliminate later removal when a case first becomes removable after the initial pleading. Section 1446(b)(3) still allows removal within 30 days after a defendant receives a paper from which removability may first be ascertained, and diversity cases retain the statutory one-year and bad-faith rules. But those statutory exceptions are not a license to revive a removal opportunity that was available at the outset.
For defense teams, the best practice is to build a removal checklist into the first notice of loss or new-suit protocol. Calendar the 30-day deadline on the day service is confirmed. Decide early whether the corporate defendant wants a federal forum. If removability is uncertain, preserve the analysis in the claim file and escalate promptly. After Enbridge, missed removal deadlines are unlikely to be rescued by equitable arguments, even when the defendant later believes federal court would have been the better forum.
