A copyright claim is filed in state court and promptly removed to federal court. Which of the following is the best reason to deny remand to state court?

• A. The federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over federal questions, so removal was proper.
• B. The state court would have jurisdiction, so remand is unnecessary.
• C. Derivative jurisdiction applies to this scenario to keep the case in federal court.
• D. The case should be re-filed in federal court before remand could be considered.

Answer: (A)

The key concept is federal question jurisdiction and removal. A copyright claim is a federal question because copyright law is a federal domain, and federal courts have original jurisdiction over copyright cases (28 U.S.C. §1338(a)). When a case filed in state court includes a federal-question claim, the case can be removed to federal court, and the federal court’s jurisdiction is not defeated by the presence of state-law claims.

Because the complaint asserts a copyright claim, the federal court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction. That makes removal proper and leaves no basis to remand the case to state court. Remand would not be appropriate simply because the state court would also have some ability to hear the case if it were in its own system; removal hinges on the federal court’s jurisdiction, not whether the state court could hear the case.

Options suggesting derivative jurisdiction or that the case should be re-filed or that remand is unnecessary for jurisdictional reasons miss the central point. The controlling idea is that federal question jurisdiction over copyright claims justifies removal and prevents remand.