In Re Crystal Power Co., Ltd., 641 F.3d 82

Crystal Power filed suit in Texas state court in 2002 against Coastal Salvadoran Power and Coastal Nejapa.
McFall, Breitbeil & Smith, P.C. represented Crystal Power; after counsel change, a new contingency agreement was signed replacing hourly billing.
McFall later moved to intervene; Crystal Power and McFall entered arbitration-related cross-claims resolving disputes by arbitration.
McFall petitioned to remove the case under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Crystal Power moved to remand, arguing an intervening plaintiff cannot invoke removal; the district court denied remand.
The Fifth Circuit granted mandamus, remanding to state court on the grounds that removal by an intervening plaintiff is improper under Shamrock Oil & Gas and related authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May an intervening plaintiff remove under the Convention?	McFall could invoke removal as a defendant on cross-claims.	Removal may only be invoked by a true defendant; intervener cannot remove.	No; intervening plaintiff cannot remove; remand required.
Does Shamrock Oil apply to cross-claims for removal?	Shamrock allows some plaintiffs to remove when they later become defendants.	Shamrock bars removal by a plaintiff who submits to state court by becoming plaintiff.	Yes; Shamrock applies; removal improper.
Is mandamus an appropriate remedy to compel remand?	Remand is the proper remedy; mandamus is appropriate.	Remand should be reviewed on appeal rather than mandamus.	Mandamus is appropriate; remand ordered.

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (counter-claims do not permit removal by plaintiff; principle extends to cross-claims/intervening plaintiffs)
In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1987) (mandamus relief recognized for remand rulings)
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008 (en banc)) (mandamus standards and limits on jurisdiction)