This case involved claims by the State of Vermont under its Consumer Protection Act against a non-practicing entity for sending allegedly deceptive demand letters. The non-practicing entity twice removed the state court action to federal court and twice the federal court remanded to state court. The court affirmed the district court’s second remand order because remand was not authorized under these circumstances pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(2).
State of Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, Case No. 2015-1310 (September 28, 2015); Opinion by: O’Malley, joined by Prost and Newman; Appealed From: District Court for the District of Vermont, Sessions III, J. Read the full opinion here.