suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law ... and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply ...” Incorporated by reference is 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a), which states that a "civil action in any State court against a railroad [by an employee] ... may not be removed to any district court of the United States.” Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 372, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959)(stating that the policy of unremovability of maritime claims brought in state courts was incorporated by Congress into the Jones Act); See Loftus v. Delaware & H.R. Corp., 122 F.Supp. 829 (M.D.Pa.1954)(<HOLDING>). 3 . An action brought fraudulently under the
holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed holding that failure to allege plaintiffs citizenship in notice of removal amounted to defect in removal procedure under former version of 28 usc  1447c holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury holding that 28 usc  1445a prohibits removal of railroad employee actions even where there is diversity of citizenship or where actions involve a federal question