Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶30

Allowing equitable tolling of § 1446(b)(1)'s deadline would undermine Congress's manifest interest in resolving threshold removal questions early and conclusively. Under the rule the Court adopts today, plaintiffs that sue in state court usually can be confdent that, after § 1446(b)(1)'s deadline has elapsed, the forum question has been put to rest and the case will proceed in the chosen court. Under the rule Enbridge favors, to the contrary, the possibility of a late removal would hang over a case, generating uncertainty and risking significant waste of resources in one forum before a possible belated removal to another. Cf. Beggerly, 524 U. S., at 49 (holding equitable tolling unavailable based in part on the “cloud of uncertainty” such tolling would produce, in a context where “certainty” was of “special importance”). Because Enbridge's approach would upset the “balance struck by…

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