Sometimes a decision comes along that seems so obvious, one wonders why it still remains one of first impression. On Jan. 15, 2020, the Third Circuit, in a case of first impression, held that a defendant who chooses to remove to federal court does not consent to personal jurisdiction by so doing, and retains its defenses it had in state court. While this might have seemed self-evident, the court in Danzinger & De Llano v. Morgan Verkamp did a service to the bar in bringing the Third Circuit in line with other circuits that have ruled on the issue, such as the First, Second and Eighth circuits.

Plaintiff was a law firm that referred potential qui tam clients to another law firm, and sought recovery of attorney’s fees from a particular referral, based on an oral agreement among counsel, but not with the actual client. Following settlement of the qui tam action, defendant received “several million dollars in attorney’s fees.” Plaintiff sued in Pennsylvania state court, by using the local procedure of a writ of summons rather than filing the complaint. This means that discovery can occur prior to the complaint, which process took a year and a half. Finally, defendant moved to compel the filing of the complaint, which occurred. Two weeks later defendant removed before its response to the complaint was due. Upon removal, defendant then moved to dismiss or alternatively, for transfer to the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff opposed the motion and alternatively sought transfer to Texas. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the grounds of no personal jurisdiction.