Matorel v. Mortensen, 2:25-cv-00066

Plaintiffs Pedro Josue Florez Ramos and Amado Alfonso Alfonzo Matorel filed suit in Utah state court against Alan Mortensen, Mortensen & Milne Corp., Suzette Rasmussen, ALL UTAH LAW PLLC, and Celeste Borys, among others.
Defendants Alan Mortensen and Mortensen & Milne Corp. removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds only three days after the suit was filed, and before any defendant had been served.
The value of the case hinged on whether the tactic known as "snap removal" (removal by a forum defendant prior to being served) is permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
There is a split among district courts as to whether snap removal by a forum defendant is allowed, with differing interpretations of the statute and its purpose.
Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, arguing the removal was improper under the forum defendant rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Permissibility of Snap Removal	Snap removal defeats the purpose of the forum defendant rule and is improper.	The statute's plain language allows removal until a forum defendant is served.	Snap removal by a forum defendant is not permissible; case remanded.
Award of Attorney Fees	Plaintiffs sought attorney fees for improper removal.	Not specifically detailed in opinion.	Court denied attorney fees and costs due to lack of clear Tenth Circuit precedent.
Application of Forum Defendant Rule	Forum defendant rule bars removal when a local defendant is named, regardless of service.	Only bars removal after a forum defendant is properly served.	Rule bars snap removal; statute should not be circumvented via non-service.

None. (All principal authorities discussed in the opinion lack official reporter citations or consist of unpublished district court rulings.)