Summary
The Supreme Court held that the 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. Although the deadline is nonjurisdictional, the statute’s text, structure, specified exceptions, and emphasis on prompt resolution of forum questions demonstrate that Congress did not authorize broad equitable exceptions. The Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s judgment requiring remand of Enbridge’s untimely removed action to Michigan state court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), although nonjurisdictional, is subject to equitable tolling.
- Whether the text, structure, and context of the federal removal statutes rebut any presumption that § 1446(b)(1)'s deadline may be equitably tolled.
- Whether Enbridge's removal was untimely and required remand to Michigan state court.
Holdings
- The 30-day deadline in § 1446(b)(1) cannot be equitably tolled.
- Enbridge's removal was untimely because it occurred 887 days after service of the complaint, well beyond § 1446(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline.
- The action must be remanded to Michigan state court.
Key quotations
“Because §1446(b)(1)’s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge’s removal was untimely and remand to the Michigan state court is required.” (1)
“The mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force, however, does not render it malleable in every respect.” (6)
“Allowing equitable tolling of §1446(b)(1)’s deadline would undermine Congress’s manifest interest in resolving threshold removal questions early and conclusively.” (10)
“Accordingly, §1446(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline cannot be equitably tolled.” (14)
Factual background
Michigan's Attorney General sued Enbridge in state court seeking to invalidate a 1953 easement and halt operation of the Line 5 petroleum pipeline. Enbridge was served on July 12, 2019, but did not remove within 30 days and instead litigated state-court motions. After a related lawsuit by Michigan's Governor was timely removed and a federal district court found federal-question jurisdiction, Enbridge removed the Attorney General's action 887 days after service.
Procedural history
The Michigan Attorney General filed suit against Enbridge in Michigan state court and served Enbridge on July 12, 2019. Enbridge did not remove within the statutory 30-day period and litigated in state court. After a related action by the Michigan Governor was timely removed and the federal district court found federal-question jurisdiction, Enbridge removed the Attorney General's action 887 days after service. The District Court denied remand on equitable grounds and certified the order for interlocutory appeal. The Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered remand; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Remand instructions
The action must be remanded to Michigan state court because Enbridge's removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).