A desire to have a federal judge hear the case. Parties sometimes believe that federal judges are more likely to be able to expertly manage complex cases than state-court judges, or are less likely to be beholden to special interests. Accurate or not, this belief often leads defendants to seek removal.

Favorable procedural rules. A defendant may wish to remove a case to federal court if federal procedural rules offer it a tactical advantage over the plaintiff. Federal pleadings standards, for example, may be more demanding than their state counterparts, or state-court deadlines may be modified or reset after removal to federal court.

A more favorable venue. While initial removal is typically to the federal court located in the district where the state court action is pending, after removal, the defendant may be able to transfer the action to a district court in another state. This type of direct transfer is unavailable in state court. Federal court may also provide a better forum to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act or to consolidate the action with a previously filed federal court suit.

More favorable rules of discovery. While discovery rules in federal and state courts vary widely, most do not impact the decision to remove. However, some specific differences may influence a defendant's desire to have its case heard in federal court. For example, expert discovery in New York State Court litigation is significantly more restrictive than in federal court. A defendant who wants the opportunity to depose the plaintiff's expert before trial may want to consider federal court as a venue. Further, obtaining non-party discovery across several states is relatively simple in federal courts. In contrast, states often require the more laborious practice of petitioning the court where the action is pending for an order authorizing non-party discovery.

Rules of evidence. The admissibility of evidence can differ greatly between federal and state courts. If an action might be decided based on the admissibility of a few select documents, defendants often factor in the differences between federal and state law when considering removal.

Offers of judgment. FRCP 68(d) provides incentive for plaintiffs to settle by requiring that a plaintiff who refuses a defendant's FRCP 68 settlement offer to pay the defendant's post-offer costs if the final judgment, even if in the plaintiff's favor, is less than the unaccepted offer. Not every state has an offer of judgment rule, and some states' offer of judgment rules may be less favorable to defendants. For defendants looking to settle an action before trial, FRCP 68 may provide a powerful incentive to seek removal.

Post-judgment interest. The post-judgment interest rate set by federal law is often significantly less than that provided by state law. For example, federal post-judgment interest rates typically run between 1% and 6%, while New York State's post-judgment interest rate is set at 9%. For cases involving potentially large damage awards, this can be a critical issue for a defendant.

Unavailability of interlocutory appeals. Federal courts severely limit the availability of interlocutory appeals when compared to state courts. A cost-conscious defendant may wish to avoid litigating numerous appeals if it believes the trial court will rule favorably.

Removal: How to Remove to Federal Court.

Removal: Post-removal Procedure.