Federal District Court Denies Request for Removal Based on the All Writs Acts

By Lewis Tesser, Partner, and Timothy Nolen, Associate, of Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP

A case out of the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York demonstrates how Federal courts strictly apply the standards for removal from state court. The case involved issues of tort law, federal practice, statutory interpretation, jurisdiction and constitutional law.

The case, Kirkland v. Rolle, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122682 (S.D.N.Y. October 14, 2011) concerned a plaintiff who brought suit against a defendant alleging defamation and libel. The defendant sought to remove (ie transfer) the action to Federal court, citing the All Writs Act and explaining that the defendant would be discouraged from testifying truthfully in a separate action if the case was not removed. Judge Holwell rejected this argument, noting that the All Writs Act did not create jurisdiction in the Federal courts, and there was no other basis for Federal jurisdiction.

At Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP, our attorneys have years of experience practicing in Federal Courts and New York State. Our knowledge of Federal practice and jurisdiction allows us to identify tactical issues such as removal to Federal court and pursue them in our clients’ interests.