Page 46 - CLT120919

46 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT

EDITORIAL BOARD

Procedural Hiccups: Potential Unintended
Consequences of E-filing

The current e-fling policy of the state judicial the removal and the State court shall proceed no
branch poses an unnecessary and unwar- further unless and until the case is remanded.”
ranted threat to a defendant’s right to remove Connecticut law has always presented a po-
a case to federal court. tential hiccup in the otherwise orderly removal
Under the federal removal statutes, a defen- process because of its relatively unique provisions
dant removing a civil action to federal court concerning the commencement of a civil action
must file its notice of removal in the appropri- and its related employment of the “return date”
ate federal court “within 30 days after the receipt with regard to civil process. Specifically, because
by the defendant, through service or otherwise, in Connecticut an action is commenced not by
of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the the filing of a complaint but by service of the com-
claim for relief upon which such action or pro- plaint (with the formal filing to follow in a manner
ceeding is based ....” The removal process carries linked to the “return date”) it has long been pos-
with it a number of procedural hurdles, the vast sible for an action to be commenced (by service
majority of which are on the federal court side on a defendant) long enough before its return date
of the ledger, but the last thing that a removing so as to implicate the thirty-day removal period
defendant must do in order to perfect a removal set by federal law.
is to file with the state court a copy of the notice In the past, however, this potential conflict
of removal filed with the federal court. Under has never been an issue as a practical mat-
federal law, the filing of that notice “shall effect ter. A defendant served with a complaint in a

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune