South Carolina Business Law Blog

As described by Greenberg Traurig , the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Clarification Act of 2011 goes into effect on January 6, 2012, making several significant changes to federal law related to removal and venue. One important addition to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446 is a provision explaining how removal is accomplished when an action has multiple defendants.  The change resolves some inter-circuit variation on that point in favor of a rule allowing each defendant 30 days from its date of service to file a notice of removal, and then further allowing earlier-served defendants to join in or consent to any previous removal.  (For a 4th Circuit discussion of this topic, see Barbour v. International Union ).  Similarly, the law codifies the the "rule of unanimity" requiring all defendants to consent to removal. The law also makes significant changes to the "amount in controversy" provisions applicable to removal, and revises the general federal venue statute .

The North Carolina Business Litigation Report has a great post about two United States Supreme Court decisions issued late last month and addressing for the first time in decades the issue of personal jurisdiction. In J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , the Court turned its attention to the question of what constitutes "purposeful availment" sufficent to subject a foreign entity to the personal jurisdiction of a state. The University of South Carolina Law Review is going to hold a symposium on October 13th and 14th to consider the impact of these two cases going forward. Details here .