Case Explained: 26a0218p.06

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying a motion to remand and remanded the case to state court because the defendant’s second removal attempt was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). The court held that the 30-day deadline for removing a civil action to federal court is a strict, mandatory requirement that cannot be equitably tolled, even when a prior remand order created ambiguity regarding jurisdiction. The court applied the standard established by the Supreme Court in *Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel*, which forecloses equitable tolling of the removal deadline. The opinion clarified that under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), federal jurisdiction is determined at the time the action is commenced; therefore, a subsequent motion for class certification in state court does not reset the 30-day removal clock if the initial complaint contained “solid and unambiguous information” that the case was removable. Because GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II had received the initial complaint in 2019 and removed the case within the statutory window then, its attempt to remove the case again in February 2025—over 2,000 days later—exceeded the deadline. The district court’s reliance on equitable tolling to excuse this delay was error, as Congress did not authorize such exceptions outside of explicit statutory provisions. The practical consequence is that the case must be returned to Ohio state court. The Sixth Circuit declined to consider GateHouse’s argument regarding a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the prior remand order, finding that the issue was forfeited because it was raised only perfunctorily in a footnote of the appellee’s brief and not properly preserved for appellate review. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.