Page 1 of 1

Concurrent But Removal is Allowed

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:49 pm
by David A. Szwak
Haun v. Retail Credit Co., [U.S.D.C. Pa.] 420 F.Supp. 859.

1681p permitting suit under FCRA to be brought in state court does not prohibit removal of action to federal Court nor does defendant waive his right to remove action to federal Court by answering action in state court.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:35 pm
by David A. Szwak
FCRA contains a grant of concurrent federal-state jurisdiction. 1681p. Under the Act, the majority of courts recently considering the issue of whether Congress intended to forestall removal of such cases by this language have decided in the negative. Broom v. TRW Credit Data, 732 F.Supp. 66 [E.D.Mich.1990]; Sicinski v. Reliance Funding Corp., 461 F.Supp. 649 [S.D.N.Y.1978]; Haun v. Retail Credit Corp., 420 F.Supp. 859 [W.D.Pa.1976]; Duff v. C.S.C. Credit Servs., 1993 Westlaw 218852 [W.D.Mo., May 27 1993] [unpublished].

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:43 pm
by David A. Szwak
FCRA contains a grant of concurrent federal-state jurisdiction. 1681p. Under the Act, the majority of courts recently considering the issue of whether Congress intended to forestall removal of such cases by this language have decided in the negative. Broom v. TRW Credit Data, 732 F.Supp. 66 [E.D.Mich.1990]; Sicinski v. Reliance Funding Corp., 461 F.Supp. 649 [S.D.N.Y.1978]; Haun v. Retail Credit Corp., 420 F.Supp. 859 [W.D.Pa.1976]; Duff v. C.S.C. Credit Servs., 1993 Westlaw 218852 [W.D.Mo., May 27 1993] [unpublished].