U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. granted a motion to remand a products liability suit to New Jersey Superior Court on Monday, holding that the forum defendant rule bars removal even when the in-state defendant has not yet been served.

The dispute centers on the "snap removal" doctrine, which some courts have permitted defendants to use to bypass the forum defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). That statute prohibits removal if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.

Plaintiff Mary Watts, an Indiana citizen, filed her products liability claim against C.R. Bard, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court on Feb. 14, 2025. Bard, a New Jersey corporation, removed the case to federal court the same day, before Watts had served the company. The case was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of Ohio.

Bard argued that the plain language of the removal statute allows a forum defendant to remove a case so long as it has not been "properly joined and served" of removal. The company pointed to dicta from the Sixth Circuit and decisions from other district courts that suggested snap removal is permissible.

Watts countered that snap removal is inconsistent with congressional intent and noted that the decisions Bard relied on are nonbinding on the Southern District of Ohio.

Sargus rejected Bard's argument, citing the Northern District of Ohio's decision in Ethington v. General Electric Co. as the "better course of action."

The purpose of the "joined and served" language is to prevent plaintiffs from naming an in-state defendant without a valid claim to defeat removal, Sargus wrote. He noted that allowing snap removal would "eviscerate a plaintiff’s well-established right to choice of forum" because sophisticated defendants could monitor state dockets and remove cases before service is perfected, a quote he attributed to the Ethington court.

"For the same reasons, after careful review of the law in the Sixth Circuit and in an effort to effectuate congressional intent, this Court finds that Bard’s removal of this case from state court to federal court was improper," Sargus wrote.

The case is remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey.