Feed Me, Seymour

Did you know there was a Texas Business Opportunities Act?  I did not know that.  But here it is, one of the pleaded causes of action in a case brought by unhappy franchisees of a non-surgical weight loss business.  Which brings up another thing I’d never heard of before – a Sculpt Pod.  Oh sure, I saw it in Little Shop of Horrors but as a legit weight loss device? 

All of which, of course, cannot help but generate a motion to remand this very interesting set of facts and causes of action to back to state court, with some interesting observations by the Court on when a claim arises under federal law.

Motion to Remand Granted

Many years ago when I was asked to prepare my first federal update paper, I called my federal courts professor from law school and asked him what people want to hear in a federal update.  He didn’t hesitate.  “Removal and remand.”  Why?  “Most lawyers don’t know anything about federal court and don’t want to be there.  The thing they want to know is how to get out.” So it’s always good to keep a few recent decisions on motions to remand handy, in case you fall into that category.  This recent opinion by Judge Mazzant fits the bill nicely, as it addresses a requirement few think about.

Reconsideration of Order Denying Remand Granted

I had an old law school professor tell me once that the number one thing most lawyers wanted to know about federal court was how to get out, and thus if I really wanted to make friends I should focus on removal and remand in my “federal update” papers.  I then had an even older partner once tell me that it’s a fool’s errand to try to persuade a judge that they made a mistake.

Thus a case in which a party not only succeeded in getting out of federal court via a successful remand, but by way of convincing a court that its prior order denying remand was erroneous would be of interest, no? Well, that’s what we have in this case arising out of a fatal Florida auto accident