Ask AI
Bill115th CongressFiled Jan 30, 2017Law
H.R. 725

Innocent Party Protection Act

Bill journey · stage 2 of 5

Under committee review

Filed
Comm.
Floor
Both
Law

What it doesSummary passed house without amendment (Mar 9, 2017)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)

Innocent Party Protection Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends procedures under which federal courts determine whether a case that was removed from a state court to a federal court on the basis of a diversity of citizenship among the parties may be remanded back to state court upon a motion opposed on fraudulent joinder grounds that: (1) one or more defendants are citizens of the same state as one or more plaintiffs, or (2) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.

Joinder of such a defendant is fraudulent if the court finds:

  • actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts with respect to that defendant,
  • state law would not plausibly impose liability on that defendant,
  • state or federal law bars all claims in the complaint against that defendant, or
  • no good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or to seek a joint judgment including that defendant.

In determining whether to grant or deny such a motion for remand, the court: (1) may permit pleadings to be amended; and (2) must consider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties.

A federal court finding that all such defendants have been fraudulently joined must: (1) dismiss without prejudice the claims against those defendants, and (2) deny the motion for remand.

What just happenedMar 13, 2017

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Who’s behind it

Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO-4](R-CO)Sponsor
5 cosponsors5 R
Read on Congress.gov
5cosponsors2committees34actions2amendments1related bills6subjects
  1. Mar 13, 2017IntroReferral

    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    Judiciary Committee
  2. Mar 9, 2017FloorH38310

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  3. Mar 9, 2017FloorH37100

    On passage Passed by recorded vote: 224 - 194 (Roll no. 152).

  4. Mar 9, 2017Floor8000

    Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 224 - 194 (Roll no. 152).

  5. Mar 9, 2017FloorH36110

    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 187 - 233 (Roll no. 151).

    Judiciary Committee
  6. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8A000

    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.

  7. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kuster (NH) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the bill back to the House with an amendment to add an exemption for any civil action brought forward that pertains to ethics in government.

  8. Mar 9, 2017FloorH36100

    Ms. Kuster (NH) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H2002)

    Judiciary Committee
  9. Mar 9, 2017FloorH35000

    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.

  10. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32600

    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 725.

  11. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was on amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.

  12. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32050

    The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.

  13. Mar 9, 2017FloorH30000

    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2000-2004)

  14. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32700

    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 725 as unfinished business.

  15. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32341

    On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.

  16. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32340

    Mr. Farenthold moved that the committee rise.

  17. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Cartwright amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Cartwright demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.

  18. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 175, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Cartwright amendment No. 2.

  19. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Soto amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.

  20. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 175, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Soto amendment No. 1.

  21. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 725.

  22. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32400

    The Speaker designated the Honorable Jody B. Hice to act as Chairman of the Committee.

  23. Mar 9, 2017FloorH32020

    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 175 and Rule XVIII.

  24. Mar 9, 2017FloorH8D000

    Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 725

  25. Mar 9, 2017FloorH30000

    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 175. (consideration: CR H1968-1974; text of measure as reported in House: CR H1972)

  26. Mar 8, 2017FloorH1L220

    Rule H. Res. 175 passed House.

  27. Mar 7, 2017FloorH1L210

    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 175 Reported to House. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 725

  28. Feb 24, 2017CalendarsH12410

    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 5.

  29. Feb 24, 2017CommitteeH12200

    Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-17.

    Judiciary Committee
  30. Feb 24, 2017Committee5000

    Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-17.

    Judiciary Committee
  31. Jan 31, 2017Committee

    Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

    Constitution and Limited Government Subcommittee
  32. Jan 30, 2017IntroReferralH11100

    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    Judiciary Committee
  33. Jan 30, 2017IntroReferralIntro-H

    Introduced in House

  34. Jan 30, 2017IntroReferral1000

    Introduced in House

Passed House without amendmentMar 9, 201781

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)

Innocent Party Protection Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends procedures under which federal courts determine whether a case that was removed from a state court to a federal court on the basis of a diversity of citizenship among the parties may be remanded back to state court upon a motion opposed on fraudulent joinder grounds that: (1) one or more defendants are citizens of the same state as one or more plaintiffs, or (2) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.

Joinder of such a defendant is fraudulent if the court finds:

  • actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts with respect to that defendant,
  • state law would not plausibly impose liability on that defendant,
  • state or federal law bars all claims in the complaint against that defendant, or
  • no good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or to seek a joint judgment including that defendant.

In determining whether to grant or deny such a motion for remand, the court: (1) may permit pleadings to be amended; and (2) must consider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties.

A federal court finding that all such defendants have been fraudulently joined must: (1) dismiss without prejudice the claims against those defendants, and (2) deny the motion for remand.

Reported to House without amendmentFeb 24, 201779

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Innocent Party Protection Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends procedures under which federal courts determine whether a case that was removed from a state court to a federal court on the basis of a diversity of citizenship among the parties may be remanded back to state court upon a motion opposed on fraudulent joinder grounds that: (1) one or more defendants are citizens of the same state as one or more plaintiffs, or (2) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.

Joinder of such a defendant is fraudulent if the court finds:

  • actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts with respect to that defendant,
  • state law would not plausibly impose liability on that defendant,
  • state or federal law bars all claims in the complaint against that defendant, or
  • no good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or to seek a joint judgment including that defendant.

In determining whether to grant or deny such a motion for remand, the court: (1) may permit pleadings to be amended; and (2) must consider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties.

A federal court finding that all such defendants have been fraudulently joined must: (1) dismiss without prejudice the claims against those defendants, and (2) deny the motion for remand.

Introduced in HouseJan 30, 2017

Innocent Party Protection Act

This bill amends procedures under which federal courts determine whether a case that was removed from a state court to a federal court on the basis of a diversity of citizenship among the parties may be remanded back to state court upon a motion opposed on fraudulent joinder grounds that: (1) one or more defendants are citizens of the same state as one or more plaintiffs, or (2) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the state in which the action was brought.

Joinder of such a defendant is fraudulent if the court finds:

  • actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts with respect to that defendant,
  • state law would not plausibly impose liability on that defendant,
  • state or federal law bars all claims in the complaint against that defendant, or
  • no good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or to seek a joint judgment including that defendant.

In determining whether to grant or deny such a motion for remand, the court: (1) may permit pleadings to be amended; and (2) must consider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties.

A federal court finding that all such defendants have been fraudulently joined must: (1) dismiss without prejudice the claims against those defendants, and (2) deny the motion for remand.

Innocent Party Protection Act — Informed