William Mauldin, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Pauline Gibson, Deceased v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.

FIRST: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)1 require every federal court, including this Court, to “dismiss” this case because the federal courts never acquired jurisdiction of this case, and thus, on the record of this case require this Court to reverse the holding of the court of appeals and to order that this case be remanded back to the state court from whence it was improvidently removed, in view of the plain language of the Rule, the applicable law pertaining to removal and to jurisdiction, and the prior recognition by this Court that: “Courts must apply the Federal Rules as they are written. . . .” Carlton v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2399, 192 L.Ed.2d 911, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4066 (2015) (opinion by Sotomayor, J.). SECOND: Where in a case only one of three state court defendants, all of whom were sued and served but never appeared or answered in that state court proceeding, removes on sole basis of alleged diversity jurisdiction, but admits in the Notice of Removal document that one of the defendants [Gonzales] has not consented to removal and is in fact a citizen-resident of the same state as plaintiff, thereby admitting lack of diversity jurisdiction, and a timely motion to remand is filed, can a federal district court thus lacking jurisdiction commence to assume control over that case and issue orders, then purport to have created diversity jurisdiction by unilaterally dismissing the admittedly 1 Attached to the Appendix (“App”) as item 4 is a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).