I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that snap removal is a patently ridiculous concept. Whatever lawyer first decided to float this argument deserves all of the praise I can heap upon them, both for the inventiveness and sheer audacity. In fact, lets take a moment to snap for them now:
In any case, snap removal has been the law in the Third Circuit since Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 152-53 (3d Cir. 2018), where the Court held that the plain language of the removal statute required snap removal even though the "result may be peculiar." Id. at 153-54.
But real snappies will be aware of the next big thing -- "super snap" removals, which the Third Circuit has yet to address. A super (duper) snap removal (expialadocious) is where the plaintiff electronically submits the complaint, the defendant becomes aware of it through their docket-monitoring service of choice, and then removes before the even been accepted by the clerk.
Snappy.
The Ninth Circuit -- the first to address this growing class of removals -- held that they "had a foundational defect—the absence of an existing civil action in state court—that rendered them not just defective but legally null and void." Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947, 963 (9th Cir. 2024).
Judge Noreika had a decision yesterday on a middle-ground between regular and snap removal, which I have chosen to call semi-super snap removal (expialadocious). The plaintiff in Higgins v. Novartis Pharms. Corp, C.A. No. 25-245-MN (D. Del. May 14, 2025) filed their case in Delaware Superior Court via file&serve. For those less familiar with state court practice, the complaint is initially reviewed by the prothonotary which checks that the fees are paid and other formal requirements are met before its given a case number and assigned to a judge. This usually doesn't take more than a day or so.
The real holdup is that the prothonotary then needs to issue the summons and pass them along to the sheriff for service (or you can move to appoint a special process server which also takes time). This can take some pretty serious time (maybe weeks) and there's not much the plaintiff can do to hurry it along.
The defendant here filed the removal notice after the prothonotary accepted the complaint, but before the summons was issued, and thus before plaintiff could have possibly effected service.
Defendant argued that this case was more like Casola, than Encompass, and moved to remand. Judge Noreika denied the motion, citing Encompass:
Plaintiffs argue that it was impossible to have served Defendant prior to removal due to Delaware’s service rules requiring service by a sheriff. With that, Plaintiffs also argue that allowing snap removal under such circumstances “yields a truly perverse result where, through no fault of their own, a plaintiff can be deprived of the forum of its choosing based on a defendant’s successful electronic stalking of the docket.” Although electronic filing does create a new ease of monitoring a docket and the Court recognizes the issues pointed out by the articles and out-of-circuit cases Plaintiffs proffer, it cannot and will not “reject the Third Circuit’s snap-removal interpretation of section 1441(b)(2).” Indeed, as noted by the Encompass court, “[i]f a significant number of potential defendants” engage in snap-removal, “contrary to Congress’ intent, the legislature is well-suited to address the issue.”
Id. at 3n.2 (internal citations omitted).
I'll let my fellow snappies know if we get a true super-snap case in the district. It seems like it ought to be broadly possible, although the timing would be tight to get your removal in order.
***snap snap***
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
