Speach on ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Speach on ethics - Essay Example This disease is caused by a SARS corona virus, and diagnosis of this disease involves detecting the body temperature, hence people with temperatures beyond 380c may be suspected. This process involves the use of modern laboratory methods such as ELISA and X-rays. SARS, as you may be aware, does not have specific treatment, but medics and other scientists are coming up with drugs such as antipyretics, which help improve respiration. According to Paquin (52), there are various prevention measures that our health professionals should implement when dealing with SARS. These include isolation of the infected people from the healthy ones to prevent spreading of this virus. Quarantine should be done to the suspected individuals who may be carrying the infection. All the victims should respect and adhere to all the instructions given by their heath attendants. Having summarized the information about the disease, I would like to support my fellow colleagues who are against the idea of disclos ing SARS information to the public. My ministry and other stakeholders are working hard to fight this disease – to make it just a history and not an epidemic in our city. I wish this disease to be fully eradicated in this country just like small pox; I believe our struggle will bear fruit in due time. If one is diagnosed with the disease, do not cause havoc among other people by telling them he is affected – this should be a personal matter. At the same time, infected people should be granted confidentiality when they seek medical attention and the necessary measures to be taken by health professionals. Paquin (57) states that one should take care and not panic if the infection is suspected; instead, one he should seek medical attention as soon as possible. If you instill fear in people, this will affect our market stocks, since the citizens will not be free to trade, as they will not want to risk being infected. This, in turn, may

Loving v. Virginia Essay -- Miscegenation

Miscegenation: Noun; Marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations between two members of two separate races. Most commonly used in reference to relations between African Americans and Caucasian Americans (blacks and whites.) In 1960’s nearly 4 out of every 225 marriages was interracial. This was frowned upon in the early to mid 1900’s and this is what two people, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving had to face. Racial indifference or a racial supremacy has been an issue in America as long as it has existed. It began with the Native Americans on this soil we thrive on today. The whites of the time pushed the Natives of what land they could and fooled them off of the rest of it. They took their children, and tried to conform them into a race they were not, and never would be. From there on, our nation grew larger and more independent. In 1619, 127 years after North America had been discovered, a Dutch man traded his cargo of Africans for food. This gave our nation its first g roup of â€Å"servants.† The uproar of slavery did not start until the 1680’s as far as the records show. The idea of slavery gave some, not all, Caucasian Americans the idea that they were better than the blacks who worked for them. Mind sets like these set the ball in motion for anti-miscegenation laws. 41out of our 50 states had these laws at one time, leaving only 9 states without ever having an anti-miscegenation law. These states being: Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New Jersey. 15 of these states abolished these laws only after the Loving V. Virginia case which was ruled on the 12th of June, 1967. That day, this couple got what they had wanted more than anything. They’re home back and their love to be a... ...icant. This one for many families today is very important. These cases are also the reason why during a census you have the opportunity to check multiple races, instead of just one. This case stirred debates of gay marriage, which is a matter of personal opinion. It is up to you whether that is a pro or a con. As we can now see, Loving v. Virginia opened plenty of doors. It took a couple that were strong and would not be beat down by hearing their marriage was illegal or how wrong they were. Richard and Mildred Loving did what every interracial couple wanted to do; make a difference. The couple gained the right to move back to their home with their families, to stay in their hometown peacefully, and to hang their marriage license on the wall and know that it is now recognized by every state. Race made no difference to them, it shouldn’t to anyone else either.

Days of Destruction Days of Revolt Essay

They offer very detailed and disturbing descriptions of life on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the slums of Camden, New Jersey, and the â€Å"surface mining† zones surrounding Welch, West Virginia, as well as some places in Immokalee, Florida, that are literally like slave camps. One chapter of the book caught my eye, â€Å"Days of Slavery. † It mainly takes place in Immokalee Florida, a center of immigrant agricultural laborers, mostly Latino. The immigrants are housed in terrible conditions, which makes it very hard for them to work. Additionally to the terrible conditions that they are forced to work in, they are also paid unreasonably low wages for the amount of time they are working. Another thing that is affecting the people who work in the factories are serious problems with breathing. They have this problem because of pesticide poisoning and other chemicals that they are being exposed to while working. One chemical that is mentioned is Methyl Bromide. It is also not uncommon for these workers to be held in literal slavery, have their paychecks stolen, and be subjected to physical abuse if they get out of line. The legal system in Florida appears willing to prosecute cases of slavery, but the immigrants are very afraid to come forward for obvious reasons. They are afraid they will be fired and more than likely the cases will not be judged in their favor. This is because these companies are huge, and are able to pay people off to continue making the workers work under unreasonable conditions. O’Neill 2 Hedges interviews activists from the Coalition of Imoakalee Workers, a very strong and militant organization. He describes their struggle to secure a minimum level of decent conditions for the workers. The chapter includes the case of Miguel Flores and Sebastian Gomez, who where sentenced in 1997 to fifteen years in prison on charges of slavery, extortion, and firearm possession. The duo oversaw a modern slavery operation of four hundred men and women who harvested fields in Florida and South Carolina. The book highlights the harsh conditions for the laborers in this operation. The author wrote: The workers, mostly indigenous Mexicans and Guatemalans, were forced to work ten to twelve hours a day, six days a week, for as little as $20 dollars a week, all under the supervision of armed guards. Those who attempted to escape were beaten, pistol-whipped, and at times shot. The crew leaders charged the workers exorbitant prices for food. Female workers, according to one victim, were routinely raped. The coalition workers were told by Flores that if their experiences of working in the factory were talked about, he would cut their tongues out. (Hedges 158) The main questions of the people in the community of Immokalee were probably, â€Å"Who is going to take a stand for us immigrants? Who is going to be our leader that we will follow so we can be treated like normal human-beings? Their questions were not being answered until a man by the name of Lucas Benitez came along. Benitez was thirty-six and had two children . A group was started by Bentiez as well as people who â€Å"found the courage to stand up to abuse, breaking the cycle of fear that keeps the system in place. † Benitez started by becoming an organizer. He and his group would meet at the local Catholic church at night to help those who were being treated unfairly. Things were turning around for the immigrants. They were protesting and trying to do whatever they could to defeat the huge companies who were making them work many hours for such little pay. As they began to protest and strike, the employers gave them what they wanted. The workers of Imoakalee, Florida, got O’Neill 3 a pay raise, and were no longer held in literal slavery. Other then the few changes that were mentioned above, Imoakalee Florida, has not significantly changed since the mid 1950’s. Today, Imoakalee, Florida, is still an area where a majority of America’s crops and produce are grown. Many immigrants still live in Imoakalee, Florida. To this day, unfortunately corruption is still going on in Imoakalee. Huge factories and companies are forcing workers to work very hard, and they are also causing damage to the environment. They are causing damage to the environment because of the smoke stacks that are required by the different factories. (Coalition of Immokalee Workers) O’Neill 4 Works Cited Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW). N. p. , n. d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013. . Hedges, Chris, and Joe Sacco. Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. New York: Nation Books, 2012. Print.

John Hopkins Hospital Case Analysis - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2748 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Tags: Hospital Essay Did you like this example? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICTSTATE OF MARYLAND *IN THE KANWE WEST,* Plaintiff* *Civil Action No. JOHN HOPKINS HOSTPITAL, ET AL* Defendants* Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "John Hopkins Hospital Case Analysis" essay for you Create order *CIRCUIT COURT QONTA WADDELL*FOR BALTIMORE CITY *CRIMINAL DIVISION *********** PLAINTIFFà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢S MOTION TO REMAND DISMISS Plaintiff, Kanwe WestNOW COMES the Defendant, Qonta Waddell, through his undersigned counselCounsel, Cassandra Costley, Assistant Public Defender, moves that this Honorable Court grant an order to remand this actiondismiss the cases against him, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, where this action was filed Rule 4-271 and the Sixth Amendment of the United Stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Constitution. The reasons supporting this motion are set forth in the attached memorandum of law. Respectively Submitted, _______________________________ Anitra B. Washington University of Maryland School of Law 500 W. Baltimore St. October 21, 2014Baltimore, Maryland 21201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICTSTATE OF MARYLAND *IN THE KANWE WEST,* Plaintiff* *Civil Action No. JOHN HOPKINS HOSTPITAL, ET AL* Defendants* *CIRCUIT COURT QONTA WADDELL*FOR BALTIMORE CITY *CRIMINAL DIVISION *********** DISMISS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢S MOTION TO REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIOMOR CITY, MARYLAND Plaintiff Kanwe West, through his undersigned counsel, movestatement of facts below support that the Defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial and therefore, is entitled to an order to dismiss by this Honorable Court to remand this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), submits this memorandum of law in support of its Motion to Remand. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kanwe West initially filed a single count of lack of consent action against Dr. Taylor Smith and John Hopkins Hospital relating to the surgery performed by Dr. Smith on the Mr. West. Mr. West alleges that the he was never told of the risks of infection/ surgical error prior to consenting to the surgery. Mr. West claims he would not have consented to the procedure had he been fully informed of the risks. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS On June 22, 2012, Mr. West had back surgery. The Defendant, Dr. Taylor Smith performed the procedure at John Hopkins Hospital, the No. 1 hospital in Baltimore City, Maryland. Mr. West was permitted to leave the John Hopkins Hospital on June 24, 2012. About two weeks after Mr. West was discharged from John Hopkins Hospital, Mr. West began to have problems with the surgical wound site. Mr. West was taken to an emergency room in Los Angeles, were he diagnosed with an infection by California physicians. After treating the infection with antibiotics, California physicians determined a second follow up surgery would be needed. On July 27, 2012, Mr. West underwent the follow up surgery to explore, irrigate and debride the wound. Mr. West continued to have back and problems with the surgical wound. Mr. West was prescribed a second course of antibiotics and there was partial obliteration of the disc space and deformity of the L4-5 vertebral bodies On September 19, 2014, Mr. West filed the Complaint in the Circuit for Baltimore City, asserting claims against Dr. Smith and John Hopkins Hospital. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants failed to obtain informed consent. Mr. West is a citizen of the State of California, and Dr. Smith is a citizen of Minnesota, and John Hopkins Hospital is a Maryland entity with its place of business in Maryland. On September 22, 2014, before any Defendant was severed John Hopkins Hospital receive notice of the lawsuit filed by Mr. West through email subscription. On September 23, 2014, John Hopkins Hospital obtained a copy of the Complaint from the clerkà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s office. On that date, John Hopkins Hospital filed a Notice of Removal. The stated basis for removal is the diversity of citizenship between Mr. West and the Defendants under 28 U.S.C. 1332. LEGAL STANDARD The U.S. Supreme Court has held removal jurisdiction is derivative in nature.[1] Basically, the Court states, if the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“state court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, the federal District Court acquires none on a removal of the case.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [2] The Court disfavors removal and notes that Congress intends to limit removal from state to federal courts.[3] The Fourth Circuit follows the precedence that doubts removal jurisdiction must be decided in favor of original state of jurisdiction. Establishing federal jurisdiction is burden on the party seeking removal.[4] The Fourth Circuit uses strict scrutiny when construing removal jurisdiction à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“because it raises significant federalism concerns.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [5] ARGUMENT Removal is Improper Because One of the Defendants are Forum Defendants. Diversity Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) provides that removal is appropriate only when the Federal Court has original jurisdiction.[6] The Federal District Courts obtains original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75, 000.[7] Cases involving diversity also require an additional requirement, the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“forum defendant rule.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [8] The à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“forum defendant rule,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  provides that a case can be removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“only if none of the parties of interest properly joined and served as defendant is a citizen of the State in which such as action is brought.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [9] Diversity jurisdiction is designed to protect out of state defendants from local bias.[10] In cases involving multiple defendants where at least one is a citizen of the forum state, the forum defendant rule precludes removal because the likelihood of local b ias against all defendant is too remote to warrant removal.[11] The present case John Hopkins Hospital is the forum defendant. The Forum Defendant Rule 28 U.S.C 1441(b) states: An civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or filing arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. The original intent of the 28 U.S.C 1441 under the First Judiciary Act of 1789 was clear from the classes of parties to remove a case from state to federal court. It made removal available for a Defendant who is of a foreign state and second Defendant of another foreign state sued by the Plaintiff whose citizenship is of the state in which the suit is brought. Revisions were made to the statue in 1948 to maintain the elements of the original statute, which forbid the removal of a Defendant who is a citizen of the forum state. Co ngress clearly prohibited removal by diversity citizenship in cases by a resident of the state in which the action was brought. This prohibition has been known as the forum defendant rule. The United States Supreme Court interpreted the language of the Act of 1887 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removalà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  continued in à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the successive acts of Congress regulation the jurisdiction of federal courtsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ calling for the strict construction of such legislation.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [12] According to the Act of 1887, the notice of removal must be filed à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“at the time, or any time before the Defendant is required by the law of the State à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the Plaintiff.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [13] The Supreme Court has held that for nonresident Defendants may remove when the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed resident Defendants.[14] In 1948, Congress replaced the ind efinite period with a set period of removal of thirty day. This time period for removal begun upon à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“receipt by the Defendant, through service or otherwise à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [of the] paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [15] Defendant, John Hopkins Hospital was not severed with process at the time of filing Notice of Removal. John Hopkins Hospital explains it retrieved notice of the compliant through subscription that sent daily emails listing lawsuits filed in state and federal court each day.[16] Nevertheless, the words à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“or otherwiseà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  in the statute do not start the definite period by any informal retrieval of a copy. Congress added à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“or otherwiseà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  in 1948 with the intent to cover state that permitted commencement of a civil action without serving a copy of the complaint.[17] The Supreme Courts holds only formal service of process beg ins the definite time period for removal. Specific Language of Section 1441(b) A forum defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s may remove a case only when à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“none of the parties in interest [are] properly joined and served as defendants is a citizenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  of the forum state. John Hopkins Hospital seeks to override this prohibition by removing the action before being formally served under Md. Rule 2-112, or have otherwise received process from the Plaintiffs. Congress did not create 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) to restrict removal by a citizen of a forum state. The point of removal was to prevent the fear of local bias against an out of state defendant in state court. Congress never intended for bias to be against a forum defendant. This Court must interpret the 28 U.S.C 1441(b) to accomplish the intent of Congress. The Defendants are described through the specific language as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“none of the parties in interest properly joined and servedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  in an expression to prohibit fraudulently joining Defendants, merely to defeat diversity juri sdiction, who were never to be served. Holmstromà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s court held that removal papers were quickly filed before any Defendant was served as an exception to the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“properly joined and servedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  description of a forum Defendant, preventing such a Defendant from simply escaping the prevention of removal. The court in Holmstrom acknowledged the districtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s reasoning that the purpose of the descriptive language à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“properly joined and servedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  was à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“to ensure that parties do not name citizens of the forum state solely for the purpose of blocking removal, without any intention of effecting service on the forum state Defendant.[18]Thus, the accurate interpretation of 28 U.S.C 1441(b) should read fully as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“none of the parties in interest properly joined and served.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  The Time Period for Remand Begins at the Start of Formal Service Process John Hopkins removal is procedurally defective because it untimely. 2.8 U.S.C. 1446(b) establishes that notice of removal must be filed within thirty days after the receipt of by the defendant through process or otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading. John Hopkins was served at the time John Hopkinsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ attorney filed the notice of Removal.[19] The United States Supreme Court clarifies that the time period for filing a Notice of Removal support this interpretation. A Notice of Removal must be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the Defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of a the pleadingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [20] In Murphy Bros, the Supreme Court held time commences on formal service of process, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“not by mere receipt of complaint unattended by any formal service.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [21] The clarification entails that the time period is commenced upon the receipt of complaint from the Plaintiff as an initiation of the action. The Supreme Court has held that a Defendant is not obligated to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and is brought under the courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s authority, by formal process.[22] The Supreme Court also states that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Service of process à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named Defendant.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [23] Because John Hopkins has knowledge of the Complaint through an email subscription, it is not a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“receiptà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  from the Plaintiff as stated in 28 U.S.C 1446 (b). John Hopkins filing before the thirty day commencement of the suit of action creates a loop hole in 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) that is not consistent with Congressà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s intent for limiting diverse jurisdiction removal, where local bias is presumed. The informal retrieval of a copy of Mr. Westà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s compliant before receipt of service does not start the time period for removal, it especially does not allow early rem oval to block removal by a forum Defendant. John Hopkins is manipulation the time period of service to trump Mr. Westà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s choice of a state forum. On July 25, 2003, appearance was filed for the counsel representing the Defendant. The Defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s case was then set for arraignment on October 10, 2003. Since October of 2003, there has been several postponements, the most recently being on February 25, 2005. On that date, the Court postponed the Defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s case again and now the case is scheduled for trial on May 13, 2005, in Part 4. The Court should take notice that the Defendant has never waived his right to a speedy trial. CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS In Moore v. Arizona, the United Statesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ Supreme Court held that there may be other reasons than prejudice to the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s defense to prove a defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. 414 U.S. 25, 94 S.Ct. 188 (1973). Instead the Court ruled that there are many factors the court may look at to determine if there has been a denial of the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right. The Court mentioned four factors that should be weighed in this determination: (1) length of delay, (2) reasons for the delay, (3) defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Moore at 26, citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 533, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (1972). The defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to a speedy trial was to prevent à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"oppressive pre-trial incarcerationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, financial ruins, and to prevent unnecessary anxiety for the defendant and his friends and family. Erbe v. State, 276 Md. 541, citing Barker, at 532. Therefore, the Court, in the case-at-hand, should consider these reasons when balancing if there was a violation of the Defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s constitutional right. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the motion of Kanwe West and remand this case to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland. Respectively Submitted, Dated: October 21, 2014 _______________________________ Anitra B. Washington University of Maryland School of Law 500 W. Baltimore St. Baltimore, Maryland 21201 In Maryland under Rule 4-271, a defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to a speedy trial should be within 180 days of the first time the defendant appeared in Circuit Court or the attorney filed an appearance. If the Defendant is tried on the next offered trial date of May 13, 2005, almost two (2) years would have passed since the Defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s attorney filed their appearance in this case. The Court must consider the time violation, the reasons for the delay, and the fact that the Defendant has not waived his right under Maryland Rule 4-271 or the 6th Amendment of the Constitution, when determining if there has been a vio lation. In this case, there has been a lengthy time violation and the Defendant has not waived his right. This Honorable Court should find in its discretion that the Defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to a speedy trial has been denied and grant this motion to di STATE OF MARYLAND*IN THE *CIRCUIT COURT QONTA WADDELL*FOR BALTIMORE CITY CASE NOS.:103206022,25*CRIMINAL DIVISION *********** ORDER Upon consideration of the foregoing Motion to Remand, it is hereby ORDERED, this day of , 2014, that the Plaintiffà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s request is hereby GRANTED. ___________________________ JUDGE [1] Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore Ohio R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). [2] Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., Inc., 319 U.S. 448 (1943). [3] American Fire Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 10 (1951) ( noting that an à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“important [Congressional] purpose [of the 1948 revision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] was to limit removal from state courtsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ). [4] Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemical Company, Inc., 29 F.3d. 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994), citing Wilson v. Republic Iron and Steel Company, 257 U.S. 92, (1921). [5] Id. Citing Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941). [6] Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987). [7] 28 U.S.C. 1332. [8] 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) [9] Id. See e.g. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets., Inc., 456 F.3d 933,939 (9th Cir. 2006). [10] McSparran v. Weist, 402 F.2d 897,876 (3d Cir. 1968); S. Rep. No. 1830, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1958 U.S. Cone Cong. Admin. News 3099, 3013 (the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“purpose of diversity of citizenship legislationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ is to provide a local juries by making available to them the benefits and safeguard of the federal courtsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ). [11] See Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Underwrities at Lloydà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s of London, 106 F.3d 494, 499 (3d. Cir. 1997) (insofar as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“diversity jurisdiction exists because of a the fear that the state tribunal would be prejudice towards the out-of-state plaintiff or defendant, that concern is undstandably allayed when that party is joined with a citizen from the forum stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .) [12] Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100,108 (1941). [13] 24 Stat. 554 (1887), as amended, 25 Stat. 435 (1888). [14] Powers v. Chesapeake Ohio Ry., 169 U.S. 92, 101 (1898). [15] 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). [16] Motion Assignment P.1 para. 7. [17] Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. 344 (1999). [18] Holmstrom v. Peterson, 492 F.3d at 835 (7th Cir. 2007). [19] Motions Assignment page 1 para. 7. [20] 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). [21] Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. at 347-48. [22] Id. at 344. [23] Id.