Description:
H.R. 3624 would require federal courts to deny a motion to transfer a case to state court under certain circumstances. The bill also would amend the procedures under which federal courts consider a motion to remove a case to state court by permitting parties to amend their pleadings.
Under current law, plaintiffs can choose to bring certain claims in federal or state court. In some cases, plaintiffs may view state courts as more favorable because of litigation strategy or timing, whereas, defendants may view federal courts as more desirable. In such cases, courts must determine which jurisdiction is proper. Under H.R. 3624, federal courts would have to deny a motion to transfer if they find that the plaintiff has misrepresented a defendant’s state of citizenship, or made a claim against a specific defendant that is not possible or plausible under state law, or is not made in good faith.
Based on information from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, CBO expects that the increase in claims would not have a substantial effect on the workload of the federal courts. Therefore, CBO estimates that the additional discretionary costs to implement H.R. 3624 would not be significant.
Because enacting H.R. 3624 would not affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3624 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
H.R. 3624 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
