jurisdiction over actions to recover employee welfare benefits. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) authorizes removal if original jurisdiction exists in the District Court. According to plaintiff, concurrent jurisdiction is not congruent with original jurisdiction, and thus removal was improper. We disagree.
At the outset, we note that section 1441(a) allows removal except "as otherwise expressly provided." Neither 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) nor (e)(1) expressly prohibits removal. The general rule is that "absent an express provision to the contrary, the removal right should be respected when there is concurrent jurisdiction." Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3739 (1985 and Supp. 1990); see Chilton v. Savannah Foods Industries, 814 F.2d 620 (11th Cir. 1987); Mercy Hospital Association v. Miccio, 604 F. Supp. 1177 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
The removal of this action to this Court was proper, and jurisdiction is properly predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a),(e). Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.
BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR.
Dated: White Plains, New York
February 1, 1996