26 Cited authorities

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (2010) Cited 4,490 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation's principal place of business is “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities”
Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing
526 U.S. 344 (1999) Cited 2,825 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n
432 U.S. 333 (1977) Cited 4,582 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co
102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,402 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.
506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 795 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a complaint "is unclear and does not specify 'a total amount in controversy,' the proper burden of proof . . . is proof by a preponderance of the evidence"
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia
142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 514 times
Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees
Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises
231 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 387 times
Holding that the amount in controversy alleged by the proponent of federal jurisdiction controls so long as the claim is made in good faith
Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Company
157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 344 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not abuse discretion by finding no prejudice to the plaintiff because action against non-diverse defendant could be brought in state court
Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity
994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998) Cited 259 times
Holding "since a defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be stipulated to or waived, attempting to force the plaintiff to enter a stipulation regarding the potential amount of damages would serve no effect in determining the actual amount in controversy at the time of removal"
Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.
704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 331 times
Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 115,787 times 572 Legal Analyses
Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 51,710 times 151 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 34,272 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 29,171 times 200 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1446 Cited 22,725 times 141 Legal Analyses
Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Cited 1,199 times 13 Legal Analyses
Requiring parties to file a disclosure statement that “name-and identif[ies] the citizenship of-every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party”
Section 1449 - State court record supplied
28 U.S.C. § 1449 Cited 11 times 1 Legal Analyses
Where a party is entitled to copies of the records and proceedings in any suit or prosecution in a State court, to be used in any district court of the United States, and the clerk of such State court, upon demand, and the payment or tender of the legal fees, fails to deliver certified copies, the district court may, on affidavit reciting such facts, direct such record to be supplied by affidavit or otherwise. Thereupon such proceedings, trial, and judgment may be had in such district court, and

Removal to Federal Court

26 Cited authorities

Holding that a corporation's principal place of business is “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities”

Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"

Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading

Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

Holding that when a complaint "is unclear and does not specify 'a total amount in controversy,' the proper burden of proof . . . is proof by a preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees

Holding that the amount in controversy alleged by the proponent of federal jurisdiction controls so long as the claim is made in good faith

Holding that the district court did not abuse discretion by finding no prejudice to the plaintiff because action against non-diverse defendant could be brought in state court

Holding "since a defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be stipulated to or waived, attempting to force the plaintiff to enter a stipulation regarding the potential amount of damages would serve no effect in determining the actual amount in controversy at the time of removal"

Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

Requiring parties to file a disclosure statement that “name-and identif[ies] the citizenship of-every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party”