26 Cited authorities

  1. Hertz Corp. v. Friend

    559 U.S. 77 (2010)   Cited 4,440 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”
  2. Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing

    526 U.S. 344 (1999)   Cited 2,803 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"
  3. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n

    432 U.S. 333 (1977)   Cited 4,555 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
  4. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co

    102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,381 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper
  5. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.

    506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 779 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"
  6. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia

    142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 504 times
    Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees
  7. Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises

    231 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 375 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
  8. Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Company

    157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 336 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
  9. Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity

    994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998)   Cited 255 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"
  10. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.

    704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 325 times
    Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes
  11. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 114,964 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"
  12. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 51,413 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.”
  13. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 34,060 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"
  14. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 28,930 times   199 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
  15. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,554 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
  16. Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1   Cited 1,156 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Governing corporate disclosure statements
  17. 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