Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶34

Seeking to discount the many exceptions to § 1446(b)(1)'s deadline, Enbridge disputes whether they are really “exceptions” at all. As to § 1446(b)(3), which applies to later“ascertained” removability, Enbridge argues it is more akin to an accrual rule for a limitations period, which this Court has distinguished from a true “ `exception[n].' ” Holland, 560 U. S., at 647. Even if so, however, that would not account for the separate “bad faith” exception to the 1-year deadline for diversity cases in § 1446(c)(1).

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