In C.O. v. Universal Health Services, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a critical ruling on “snap” removal, a legal tactic that has been increasingly used by defendants to transfer cases to federal court before a forum defendant is served. The case provides valuable insights into how courts interpret the forum defendant rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) and the timing of service in removal proceedings.
This post will break down the case background, legal arguments, court decision, and the broader implications of this ruling.
What Is “Snap” Removal?
Before diving into the specifics of C.O. v. Universal Health Services, it’s important to understand the concept of snap removal.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (the forum defendant rule), a lawsuit cannot be removed to federal court if the defendant is sued in their home state, provided that they have been “properly joined and served.” The rationale behind this rule is that a local defendant should not be able to manipulate the system to avoid a state court proceeding.
However, some defendants have exploited a loophole by removing a case to federal court before the in-state defendant is formally served. This tactic, known as snap removal, has been upheld by some courts, particularly in the Third Circuit case of Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant, Inc.. In that case, the court allowed snap removal, stating that the “properly joined and served” language in the statute permitted removal if the defendant had not yet been formally served.
Case Background: C.O. v. Universal Health Services
In this case, C.O., the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS) and Universal Health Services of Delaware, Inc. (UHSD) in Pennsylvania state court. Both defendants were citizens of Pennsylvania, meaning that under normal circumstances, they would not be allowed to remove the case to federal court under the forum defendant rule.
However, the defendants attempted to take advantage of snap removal by moving the case to federal court before they were formally served. The plaintiff, in response, filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the removal was improper.
Universal Health Services Attorneys
Defendants’ Argument: Snap Removal Is Permitted Under Encompass
The defendants relied on the Third Circuit’s Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant, Inc. decision, which had upheld the use of snap removal as long as a forum defendant had not been “properly joined and served.”
They argued that since they had removed the case before service was officially completed, they were within their rights to transfer the case to federal court.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Service Had Already Been Completed
The plaintiff countered this by asserting that service had actually been completed before the removal filing, making the snap removal invalid.
To support this, the plaintiff requested discovery to verify when service had occurred, arguing that the defendants had been properly served prior to filing for removal.
The Court’s Ruling: Defendants Were Properly Served, So Removal Was Invalid
After reviewing the case, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting the motion to remand the case back to Pennsylvania state court.
Key Findings:
- The defendants had been properly served before they removed the case to federal court.
- Because service was completed before removal, the forum defendant rule applied, making removal improper.
- The court rejected the defendants’ reliance on the Encompass ruling, as the facts here were different—the defendants had already been served.
This ruling effectively blocked the defendants from using snap removal and reinforced the importance of service timing in jurisdictional disputes.
Why This Case Matters: The Future of Snap Removal
1. Reinforces Limits on Snap Removal
This ruling highlights a significant limitation to snap removal. While some courts have allowed snap removal when a forum defendant has not yet been served, this case confirms that once service has been completed, defendants cannot rely on snap removal to sidestep state court jurisdiction.
2. Emphasizes the Importance of Service Timing
The case demonstrates that proper service timing can determine whether a case stays in state court or is removed to federal court. Plaintiffs who want to avoid federal court should ensure that defendants are served as soon as possible to prevent snap removal tactics.
3. A Win for Plaintiffs Fighting Forum Shopping
Forum shopping—where defendants try to manipulate jurisdiction in their favor—is a common tactic in civil litigation. This ruling strengthens plaintiffs’ ability to keep cases in state court when they are suing a defendant in their home state.
Key Takeaways for Attorneys & Plaintiffs
- Defendants cannot rely on snap removal if they have been served before filing for removal.
- Service timing is critical—plaintiffs should complete service as soon as possible to avoid jurisdictional disputes.
- Forum defendant rule is still in effect—defendants in their home state generally cannot remove a case to federal court once they are properly served.
A Strong Precedent Against Snap Removal Abuse
The ruling in C.O. v. Universal Health Services sets an important precedent that reaffirms the limitations of snap removal and protects plaintiffs from unfair jurisdictional gamesmanship.
As courts continue to interpret the forum defendant rule, this case provides guidance for both plaintiffs and defendants on when removal is valid—and when it isn’t.
For a more detailed breakdown of the court’s memorandum, you can read the full ruling here: C.O. v. Universal Health Services.
