Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶26

This highly detailed scheme matters for at least two reasons. First, the “ascertain[ment]” provision in § 1446(b)(3) functions much like a discovery rule, giving defendants extra time to remove after the date on which they learned or should have learned that a case was removable. In doing so, Congress “has already effectively allowed for equitable tolling” in this one respect but not others, which cuts against the availability of broader tolling. United States v. Beg gerly, 524 U. S. 38, 48 (1998). Second, in creating the “bad faith” exception to § 1446(c)(1)'s 1-year bar in diversity cases, Congress specifically “accounted for equitable factors,” by providing additional time for removal, in a way that would be superfuous if § 1446(b)(1) already broadly provided for equitable tolling in all cases. Arellano, 598 U. S., at 10.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.