When defendants do it, it isn’t forum shopping
A pet peeve of many "reformers" is what they call "forum shopping," which is when a plaintiff chooses to file a lawsuit in the court he or she thinks will be most favorable to him or her. Sometimes this is a state court, occasionally it's a federal court. I was reminded of this when I saw Walter Olson mention that Professor Chemerinsky (sometimes referred to as the esteemed Professor Chemerinsky) has a new book on the subject:
Prof. Chemerinsky is out with a new book that (per John McGinnis's review in today's WSJ) proposes letting plaintiffs pick either a federal or a state forum, whichever they think will prove most favorable, to enforce their rights under federal law. He's not crazy about knocking out state law through pre-emption, either.
A quick observation about "forum shopping." Defendants do this all the time by removing a case to federal courts, which are generally considered more defendant-friendly. After a plaintiff goes to the trouble of filing and serving his lawsuit in state court, the defendant merely files a simple motion, and *poof* the case is now in a different court. "Reformers" of course see nothing wrong with this form of "forum shopping" because it benefits their corporate benefactors. Yet another case of "reformer" hypocrisy.