If you’ve ever told a client “don’t worry, we can probably get a few extra days” on a procedural deadline, the Supreme Court gave you one less excuse to make that promise. On April 22, 2026, the Court decided Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, 608 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 1074, 224 L. Ed. 2d 587 (2026), holding unanimously that the 30-day deadline to remove a case from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) cannot be excused by equitable tolling. Enbridge waited 887 days after being served with Michigan’s state-court complaint before trying to remove the case. The Supreme Court, through Justice Sotomayor, said no, the clock runs and nothing stops it except the exceptions Congress wrote into the statute.
For more than 45 years I have moved between California state courts and federal court. I know that state and federal procedure are not two dialects of the same language. They are different languages that share some vocabulary.
Take the removal deadline itself. Once a defendant is served with a complaint that reveals a removable case, the 30-day clock starts running. If there are multiple defendants served on different dates, each gets its own 30 days, and a later-served defendant can still remove even after an earlier-served defendant’s window has closed. For diversity cases, there’s also a hard outer limit: one year from filing, absent bad-faith conduct by the plaintiff to block removal. After Enbridge, courts have even less room to forgive a missed window with “good cause” arguments. Calendar the deadline from the date your client is served, not the day you decide to think about strategy.
Summary judgment is another place where lawyers get tripped up assuming the rules transfer. California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b)(1) requires a separate statement of undisputed material facts, and skipping it can sink an otherwise winning motion. Federal court isn’t rule-free on this point either, it just gets there differently. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require a separate statement, but local rules often do. The Central District of California’s Local Rule 56-1, for instance, requires a “Statement of Uncontroverted Facts,” numbered and pinpoint-cited to the record, with a mirror-image opposition statement required from the other side. Same concept, different rulebook, different formatting traps.
The lesson is not just “know the rules.” It’s that procedural fluency in one forum does not automatically transfer to the other. The cost of assuming it does shows up at the worst possible moment, a missed deadline, a denied motion, a case that never gets to the merits. Whether you are deciding if a case belongs in state or federal court, or making sure your summary judgment papers will actually be considered, you must use the same rigor you’d bring to picking a jury or cross-examining a witness.
If you are facing a removal decision, a procedural deadline, or any civil litigation matter in California or federal court, call my office at (714) 673-6500 or visit juryattorney.com/contact-us/ to talk through your options.
