Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶2
Held: Because § 1446(b)(1)'s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge's removal was untimely. Pp. 75–84. (a) The fact that the 30-day removal deadline in § 1446(b)(1) is nonjurisdictional does not automatically render it subject to equitable tolling. While jurisdictional requirements “cannot be waived or forfeited” and “do not allow for equitable exceptions,” Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. 199, 203, “[t]he mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force . . . does not render it malleable in every respect,” Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U. S. 188, 192. Some nonjurisdictional rules remain “mandatory” and “are not susceptible” of equitable tolling. Ibid. The Court need not decide whether § 1446(b)(1) qualifes as a statute of limitations subject to a presumption of equitable tolling because, even if the presumption applies, it can be…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.