Hi there;Acting as a pro se, I had a state case that was removed to federal, and since it almost identical to a federal case I had also filed the two were consolidated by the judge. However the removed case had a remand decision pending that had not yet been ruled on. My question is this: I want to object to the consolidation as I am within 14 days of the order, but I do not want to offend the Court (which has been exceedingly generous with me so far) by telling her that part of the case does not belong in her court and that I preferred it be decided in the State Court due to important compelling state interests in the enforcement of its own version of the federal law involved.How can I best do this? Can I motion an objection to the consolidation in a nice way? or should I perhaps motion for partial remand? Please let me know what legal authority I can point to, if only one statute or case, I can find the rest. Thank you
Hi, I’m a moderator for this topic and I wonder whether you’re still waiting for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will do my best to find a professional to assist you right away. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you. Thank you!
Still no answer.
Sometimes, finding the right Expert can take a little longer than expected and we thank you greatly for your understanding. We’ll be in touch again shortly.
well I've given up at this point
Thank you for your question today, I look forward to assisting you. I bring nearly 20 years of legal experience in various disciplines.Unfortunately, there really is not nice way to object to the court having jurisdiction over the claim. If there are federal statutes involved, the case is properly removed to federal court and that court has jurisdiction to hear cases involving federal claims.What you would essentially be having to say is that you do not feel that the federal court judge, that resides in and comes from the very state that you are located in, is not capable of understanding the underlying state issues.It is going to be an insult, no matter how you go about it. These are federal judges. They have been selected from their state, because they were of the highest caliber when it came to understanding their state's laws. So, there simply is no nice way to tell that you judge that you think they shouldn't hear a state claim. Furthermore, it is an objection that will almost certainly be denied (given the overlapping federal issue) and then you'll have upset the judge that will be hearing your claim, which is most unwise.If I was the attorney in this case (and it was not pro se), I'd accept the courts jurisdiction. I believe that this is the reason that people have been reluctant to answer your question. No one likes giving out bad news or being rated down for having to do so. I just didn't want your question to go on ignored.Jagcorps_esq41094.2097731134
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).