Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 35584
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:35584 Activity:high
1/7     Anyone has any luck suing a person/business outside of California
        through small claim court?  How can the court order the defendant
        to appear in this case?
        \_ The same way that they order people in the state to appear.
           Just because a person is out of state doesn't mean that he/she
           can't be sued and required to show up in court. The only issue
           here is whether the court will uphold that it has jurisdiction
           over the case.
           \- this is not strictly correct. a business has to have
              "dealings" in california to be sued in a CA court.
              in the case of a person, this is more unlikely unless
              possibly the suit is over some issue that required being
              in CA ... like say a car accident or some tort involving
              such a physical act. there are things called "long arm
              statues" which is how corts can compel non-residents/remotely
              incorped busness to appear, but i am not sure if small claims
              courts have differnt long arm statues. for a real/large business
              it is highly likely that they have enough business presence
              in CA .. in which you can probably check with the sec of state's
              office who the califnornia agent is for process service/summons.
              for somebody who runs a hotdog stand in louisiana, you probably
              cant sue them for food poisioning in CA court. on an amusing note
              on the jurisdiction question you may want to look at Mayo v.
              Satan and His Staff. --psb
              \_ Yes, psb, we know this. What do you think "jurisdiction over
                 case" means? It is strictly correct. If you don't know what
                 \- as someone i know used to say "i dont mind tautologies;
                    they're always true!". saying you can sue in court X
                    if court X has jurisdiction i suppose is meaningless and
                    unhelpful more than true/untrue. "the court feels" ...
                    is driven by guidelines such as the ones i discuss.--psb
                 "jurisdiction over the case" means don't comment. Also, you
                 don't need a business presence in CA to be sued in CA. All
                 that is required is that the court feels that it has original
                 jurisdiction on the matter involved. Under the UCC this means
                 the place of business, and if the business was conducted
                 in CA then the court will find it has original jurisdiction.
                 If all fails, you can go file a suit in Federal Court, and
                 there will NOT be ANY questions about original jurisdiction,
                 but for a small claims matter it's not worth the money.
                       \-mr. d. ass: you also misuse the term "original
                         jurisdiction" ... that is in contrast to appelate
                         jurisdiction, not geography or "diversity juris-
                         diction". as you suggest, federal ct may be an
                         option, but whether it is worth the money is not
                         fully up to the plaintiff, but there is a minimum
                         specified in the USC and USCA. See e.g.
                         http://csua.org/u/amm
                         \_ Uhm, no, there is really only the concept of
                            "original jurisdiction". It encompases what you
                            refer to as "geographic jurisdiction", which in
                            reality is a fiction. So STFU dumbass. Original
                            Jurisdiction always comes from the lower courts,
                            and appellate courts have original jurisdiction
                            in certain types of cases. There also isn't
                            really a term caled "appellate jurisdiction,"
                            which is a fiction also. However, since it's
                            unfortunately come into common usage I suppose
                            that it can be considered as such.
                            Read up on some Prosser/Keaton.
                 \_ I belive the problem here is that the two of you
                    are confusing two separate ideas: personal jx and
                    \- i'm not the one confused. the OP is the one
                       specifcally asking about the geographic/diversity
                       issue.
                       \_ Sorry. The guy who was responding to you is
                          a doofus, and I should be doing hw instead of
                          writing about jx...
                          writing about jx on the motd...
                    subject matter jx. A ct must have both in order
                    to hear a case. SMJX is sometimes refered to as
                    "original jx" in the context of fed cts.
                    In order for a ct to hear a case, it must first
                    have SMJX. In general state cts are cts of general jx
                    and have original jx over all cases. Fed cts are cts
                    of limited jx and have original jx only over two types
                    of cases, federal question (USC Title 28 Sec 1331) and
                    diversity (USC Title 28 Sec 1332). The jx of the fed
                    cts are limited by Article 3 of the Constitution.
                    In order for a case raise a fed question the complaint
                    must arise from the constitution, treaties of the US
                    or laws of the fed gov.
                    In order for a case to be in diversity two requirements
                    must be met: (1) the claim must be greater than $75K (if
                    you are trying to sue in small claims, you can't meet
                    this) and there must be complete diversity in citizenship
                    "across the v". Complete diversity means that no plaintiff
                    and no defendant must be citizens of the same state. A
                    corporation is considered a citizen of 2 places, the
                    place where it is incorporated and the place where it has
                    its primary place of business. The primary place of bus.
                    can be determined using one of two tests: (1) the nerver
                    center test (where are the admin offices located) or (2)
                    the muscle test (where the manufacturing occurs).
                    Personal jx is a different idea. It is refers to the
                    power of a ct to compel a person to appear before it and
                    defend a suit. PJ is proper in a state if the defendant
                    (1) resides there or (2) was personally served with
                    process in the state. PJ may also be proper over non-res
                    defendants IF the state has a long arm statue authorizing
                    the exercise of PJ over non-res defendants. Almost all
                    states have such statues. Some states (ex NY) enumerate
                    the circumstances under which PJ may be properly exercised
                    by the states cts over non-res, while others (ex CA) say
                    that any exercise of PJ consistent with Due Process is
                    okay.
                    Even if there is a statue that says that PJ can be
                    exercised by the ct, that exercise must be consistent
                    w/ the requirements of Due Process which according to
                    the USSC means that that the defendant has to have min
                    contacts w/ the state AND the exercise of PJ must be
                    consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
                    substantial justices (see Intl. Shoe)
                    If the case is related to some specific action of the
                    defendant w/ or in the state, then even a single
                    contact may be enough (specific jx). If the case is
                    unrelated to the contacts of the defendant in the
                    state, then lots of contacts are need.
                    There are lots of factors that a ct considers when
                    figuring out if PJ is fair: (1) the burden on the
                    defendant to defend in the state, (2) the interest
                    of the plaintiff in efficient resolution, (3) the
                    interest of the state, (4) interests of other states
                    and (5) shared interests of many states.
                    I'm sure this was WAY more than you possibly wanted
                    to know. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that if
                    you are suing a non-resident corp in small claims
                    ct you will probably not have any basis for being
                    in fed ct and you will probably have a hard time
                    compeling the corp to appear.  However, you may be
                    able to get a judgment by default and then via
                    Full Faith and Credit get a lean on the corp's
                    property in its home state. Then you can show up
                    at the annual shareholders meeting and say that
                    you are not leaving the bldg until the deadbeat
                    corp makes you whole. This is an effective way
                    to get your money and your ass kicked in one go.
              \_ http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
                          \_ Sorry, you're wrong. If you actually understood
                             substantive law instead of merely googling for
                             stuff you'd understand what
                             "original jurisdiction":
                             really means. And PSB, stop junking up the motd
                             with your google transcripts. I'm sure we can
                             all cut and paste from the web. That doesn't mean
                             you know shit about the law.
                             \- are you the person whose orginal contribution
                                [sic] was the tautology above?
                                \_ My friend, if you actually knew anything
                                   about law you'd realize that it is filled
                                   with tautologies. Res ipsa loquitur.
                                   An example of this include the following:
                                   the description of cause-in-fact or
                                   actual cause
                                   the description of proximate cause
                                   the concept of what a reasonable person is
                                   the concept of what negligence is
                                   the definition of intent
                                   the definition of voluntary
                                   Take a 1L course in substantive law,
                                   see if you can pass it. Then come back
                                   and we'll talk.
                                   \_ First time poster, long time listener
                                      here.  The description of 'actual cause'
                                      is not as simple and tautological as you
                                      may think.  Email me for technical
                                      details. -- ilyas
                                   \- the law may be filled with tautologies
                                      but your first respose was totally
                                      useless. Well 99% useless. You claim
                                      1. you may be able to reach out to
                                      someone in another state 2. and you can
                                      do so if the court decides you can.
                                      while i suppose point #2 is sort of a
                                      "legal realist" answer [the law is what
                                      courts say it is ... as opposed to some
                                      metaphysical body of a priori principles
                                      of justice], it's not helpful to the OP.
                                      if you are an attorney and gave me
                                      advice like that, i'd not only think the
                                      "law's an ass" but my lawyer was too.
                                      some tautolgies ... or "analytic
                                      statements" are trivial, some are
                                      merely uninteresting and some are
                                      useful or insightful. 1=1 is trivial.
                                      x^23+x^5+x+5=8 has solution x=1 is
                                      a useless factoid. sum 1/2^x from 1
                                      to infinity = 1 is "interesting" ...
                                      so all of these are "tautologies across
                                      the equal sign", but only one is a
                                      valuable observation.
           \_ Thanks.  I am doing this for someone.  I have sent two
              emails to the debtor and I was never able to reach the
              debtor by phone.  Small claim court is the next logical
              step?
              \-email is pretty worthless. send a demand letter by registred
                or cert mail or whatever it is called.
              \_ If the person you are trying to sue is a non-resident
                 the ct may not have any effective way to compel them
                 to appear and defend (provided PJ is proper in the
                 state in which you bring your suit). Since the cap on
                 small claims is $2,500, many non-residents will just
                                 \_ Not neccesarily true, certain
                                    districts allow you to sue up to
                                    $5000. It depends on the district
                                    and the state.
                 decide that it is not worth the hassle and won't appear.
                 You will be given a judgment by default, but in order
                 to enforce this judgment you will have to travel to
                 a state where the defendant resides and ask a ct in
                 that state to enforce the judgment (the ct has to b/c
                 of Full Faith and Credit).
                 Enforcement is a bit easier if the non-resident has
                 property in the state in which you sue. As part of
                 your suit you can ask the ct for a pre-judgment
                 attachment of the property. If the defendant is a
                 no-show, then you will be awarded judgment by default
                 and you can ask the ct to order a sheriff's sale of
                 the property to satisfy your judgment.
                 \- law person: for a good time you may wish to look up
                    789 F. Supp. 395 ... also avail at:
                    http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
                    Last line is sort of funny, w.r.t. jurisdiction.
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
	...
2010/8/29-9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:53942 Activity:kinda low
8/29    OC turning liberal, maybe there is hope for CA afterall:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/us/politics/30orange.html
        \_ and the state is slowly turning conservative. Meg 2010!
           \_ We will see. Seems unlikely.
        \_ Yeah, because CA sure has a problem with not enough dems in power!
           If only dems had been running the state for the last 40 years!
	...
2010/7/15-8/11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:53885 Activity:nil
7/15    "Mom jailed over sex with 14-year-old son"
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38217476/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
        \_ I just bought a hot homeless teen runaway lunch.
           Am i going to jail?
           \_ Was she 18?
        \_ FYI people "MILF" doesn't always mean what you think it means.
	...
2010/4/15-5/10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:53786 Activity:nil
4/15    Guess who is not on this list (States with worst projected deficits):
        http://www.cnbc.com/id/36510805?slide=1
        \_ Don't know how CA missed that list; we're looking at a $20B deficit
           on $82.9B spending (24.1%)  -tom
           \_ Even if that number is accurate, it makes California #7. That's
              enlightening given the attenion California has received.
	...
2009/9/2-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53319 Activity:low
9/2     California will survive its crackup:
        http://tinyurl.com/qfzdpn
        \_ not if we can help it.
        \_ I like the comparison with Italy.  Maybe someday we can have
          dozens of political parties fighting!  yay chaos!!
          \_ Do you think Italian people have a lower quality of life than
	...
2009/8/12-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53268 Activity:moderate
8/12    Thanks for destroying the world's finest public University!
        http://tinyurl.com/kr92ob (The Economist)
        \_ Why not raise tuition? At private universities, students generate
           revenue. Students should not be seen as an expense. UC has
           been a tremendous bargain for most of its existence. It's time
           to raise tuition to match the perceived quality of the
	...
2009/8/14-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:53270 Activity:low
8/14    How California's Lock-Em-Up Mentality actually makes crime worse:
        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426
        \_ Sounds nice, but the stats say the crime rate is better since
           we started locking them up.
           \_ You should look up "correlation and causation."
              \_ Just because they are not necessarily correlated doesn't
	...
2009/2/27-3/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Women] UID:52654 Activity:moderate
2/27    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7914357.stm
        *shocking* allegations.
        China denounces US 'rights abuse':
                China has responded in detail to a US report published this
                week criticising China for alleged rights abuses. Beijing
                released its own report on the US, saying crime is a threat to
	...
2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Industry/Jobs] UID:52585 Activity:moderate
2/16    So California is going to lay off 20% of employees. Seems like a
        good idea, but won't all those people now get unemployment benefits? So
        we'll be paying something like 60% of their salaries (depends on
        their income) for 0% of their work.
        \_ It's a great idea because we're starving the beast. Who needs
           a big government? Every man should be self reliant for his own
	...
2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52590 Activity:high
2/16    California is truly f'd for sure this time.  Can we find another pair
        of stupid radio DJs to start a drive to recall Arnold?
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17cali.html?_r=3&hp
        \_ It will only help if we get a governor with a spine, and get rid of
           the incompetent legislature.
           \_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge?  With the 2/3rd
	...
2009/2/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:52512 Activity:kinda low
2/4     Another business flees California
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020401632.html
        \_ this whole bribe businesses to "create" jobs is a crock of bs imo
           \_ Sure, but the end result is CA loses jobs.
              \_ well, no, it isn't.  Other business replace them.  -tom
                 \_ May I suggest that when you make such asinine comments
	...
2009/1/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52362 Activity:moderate
1/12    Californians fleeing to other states in record numbers:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/ap_on_re_us/fleeing_california
        \_ Thank god, I hope this will ease up with congestion. On the
           other hand, this may result in Latino explosion... hmmm....
           \_ OH NOES!   THE LATINOS ARE COMING!
              \_ I don't mind more Salma Hayek and Yurizan Beltran.
	...
2013/6/18-8/13 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:54695 Activity:nil
6/17    Don't mess with Texas:
        http://gawker.com/woman-tells-carjacker-he-picked-wrong-witch-runs-him-513728108
        \_ Kudos.  I just worry that some shameless ambulance-chasing lawyer
           might sue her on behalf of the criminal.
           \_ America has more lawsuits per capita than any other nation.
              Lawyers, rejoice!!!
	...
2012/10/1-11/7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:54488 Activity:nil
10/1    Photos of the Supreme Court in session:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/8zuqc25 [slate]
	...
2012/3/27-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Law/Court] UID:54349 Activity:nil
3/27    Trayvon Martin case:
        http://www.csua.org/u/vw7 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk
        Is this truth, or false rumor spread by critics?
        \_ Does it make any difference?
           \_ I guess since there probably won't be solid evidence on either
              side of the story (no witness, no surveillence tape, ...), this
	...
Cache (4393 bytes)
csua.org/u/amm -> www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl28/ptIV/ch85/sec1332.html
costs The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between - citizens of different States; citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled. Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff. Words ''all civil actions'' were substituted for ''all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity'' in order to conform to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Words ''or citizens of the District of Columbia, Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory'' which were inserted by the amendatory act April 20, 1940, are omitted. The word ''States'' is defined in this section and enumeration of the references is unnecessary. The revised section conforms with the views of Philip F Herrick, United States Attorney, Puerto Rico, who observed that the act of April 20, 1940, permitted action between a citizen of Hawaii and of Puerto Rico, but not between a citizen of New York and Puerto Rico, in the district court. In that case the 1940 amendment was held unconstitutional insofar as it affected the District of Columbia. However, two other district courts upheld the amendment. Therefore, the revised language covers civil actions between - Citizens of a State, and citizens of other States and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof; Citizens of a Territory or the District of Columbia, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof; Citizens of a State or Territory, and citizens of the District of Columbia; Citizens of a State, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof. The revised section removes an uncertainty referred to in the McGarry case, supra, as to whether Congress intended to permit citizens of the Territories or the District of Columbia to sue a State or Territory itself rather than the citizens thereof. L 94-583 substituted ''citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and'' for ''foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof are additional parties''. L 88-439 inserted proviso deeming an insurer of liability insurance, in an action to which the insurer is not joined as a party-defendant, a citizen, of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as well as the State the insurer has been incorporated by and the State where it has its principal place of business. Act July 26, 1956, included the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. L 104-317 provided that: ''The amendment made by this section (amending this section) shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act (Oct. L 100-702 provided that: ''The amendments made by this section (amending this section) shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after the 180th day after the date of enactment of this title (Nov. L 100-702 provided that: ''The amendment made by this section (amending this section) shall apply to any civil action commenced in or removed to a United States district court on or after the 180th day after the date of enactment of this title (Nov. L 100-702 provided that: ''The amendment made by this section (amending this section) shall apply to claims in civil actions commenced in or removed to the United States district courts on or after the 180th day after the date of enactment of this title (Nov. L 88-439 provided that: ''The amendment made by this Act to section 1332, title 28, United States Code, applies only to causes of action arising after the date of enactment of this Act (Aug. L 85-554 applicable only in the case of actions commenced after July 25, 1958, see section 3 of Pub.
Cache (2630 bytes)
www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
Gerald MAYO v SATAN AND HIS STAFF United States District Court Western District of Pennsylvania 54 FRD 282 December 3, 1971 Gerald Mayo, pro se. Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 USC 241, 28 USC 1343, and 42 USC 1983 prays for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He a lleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of the plaintiff, that Satan has p laced deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and has caused plaintiff' s downfall. Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights. We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must b e denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of acti on upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether pl aintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judi cial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official records disclose no case where this defend ant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage forecl osure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plainti ff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. Th is defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whethe r this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to dete rmine at this time. If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whet her it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requi rements of FedR of CivP 23 that the class is so numerous that joinde r of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact c ommon to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typica l of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representat ive party will fairly protect the interests of the class. We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the r equired form of instructions for the United States Marshal for direction s as to service of process. For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the p rayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number a nd leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.
Cache (3151 bytes)
home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
ORDER OF REMAND This matter comes before the court sua sponte. After an extreme close-up review of the record and excellent authorities, the court enters the following order. Hurling Chunks On October 11, 1988, while berthed at the facilities of BRADFORD MARINE, INC. The blaze hurled chunks of flaming debris to other vessels, destroying those owned by LYN C NOBLE ("NOBLE") and ROBERT C MUIR ("MUIR"). Thereafter, NOBEL and MUIR commenced, on June 7, 1989, and July 15, 1989, respectively, separate actions in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. TIME as a new party, that Defendant, on May 9, 1990, removed the proceeding to federal court, claiming original jurisdiction insofar as the Plaintiff's causes of action or rights arose under the Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution. n1 PRIME TIME asserted that removal was timely because it came within thirty days of service of the Amended Complaint. Similarly, the MUIR action was also removed after that Plaintiff amended his Complaint so as to add PRIME TIME as a Defendant. Upon BRADFORD's objection, this court, by Order dated June 28, 1990, remanded the NOBLE action to the state court for the failure of all Defendants to join in the removal. On August 31, 1990, in accordance with Rule 6 of the General Rules of the Southern District of Florida, n2 the MUIR suit was transferred to the undersigned. Thereafter, PRIME TIME filed a Supplemental Notice of Removal (DE 2), bearing both the NOBLE and MUIR captions, attempting to effect a phoenix-like ascent to federal court through the MUIR proceeding. sponte whether its subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked. See 14A Charles A Wright, Arthur R Miller & Edward H Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure @ 3721 (2d ed. If the case, as stated by the initial pleading, is not removable, removal may be effected within thirty days after receipt or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading from which it may be ascertained that the case is removable. and strictly construed in accordance with Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure to comply with time requirement of Section 1446 is a defect causing "improvident" removal. The addition of a new Defendant in an Amended Complaint, however, does not start the time for removal anew when the original Complaint itself was removable. Unless the amendment sets forth a new basis of federal jurisdiction, subsequent events do not make a removable case "more removable" or "again removable." Thus, the failure of initial Defendants to remove during the original thirty day time period is deemed a waiver of the right of removal which is binding on subsequently added Defendants. A Schwing and a Miss Because of the court's admiralty jurisdiction, MUIR's original Complaint, like his Amended Complaint, provided BRADFORD with a basis for removal. As a result, PRIME TIME's removal, almost ten months after MUIR commenced suit, is untimely and is a defect deemed "way" improvident. For similar reasons, the court finds that removal of the NOBLE case, which had been remanded, was also untimely.