Whether a district court can extend the mandatory statutory deadline to file a motion for remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) without violating the constitutional separation of powers

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This appeal presents important questions not yet settled by this Court related to federalism and the separation of powers. Specifically, the case presents the Court with the opportunity to clarify the impact and importance of deadlines set by Congress in federal statutes and distinguish them from court-set deadlines. The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, delegates to the courts only the “general rules of practice and procedure,” thereby reserving exclusively to Congress all other rules governing the federal courts. At issue here is the federal removal statute, which calls for motions to remand to be filed within 30 days of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(¢). But the District Court in this case swa sponte extended that deadline by more than seven months, exceeding its constitutional authority by disregarding a mandatory statutory deadline set by Congress. And although the clock for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715 (““CAFA”), does not begin to run until a defendant receives from a plaintiff a document demonstrating the amount in controversy, the District Court in this case held that a vague and subsequently retracted “open letter” posted online and never delivered by Plaintiffs to Defendants was enough for Defendants to “unambiguously ascertain” the amount in controversy. This Court has not addressed these specific issues, and this appeal gives the Court the opportunity to resolve ambiguities in CAFA jurisprudence. The questions presented are: 1. Cana District Court extend the mandatory statutory deadline set by Congress to file a motion for i remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) without violating the constitutional separation of powers? 2. Does a letter posted online but not sent by any plaintiff to any defendant constitute “other paper” sufficient to start the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)? 3. In assessing whether a defendant has sufficient information to determine that the CAFA amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, is it appropriate for the District Court to require the defendant to engage in extrapolation and speculation? ii