§Why CasetextPricing

Removal to Federal Court

undefined

11 Cited authorities

  1. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens

    574 U.S. 81 (2014)   Cited 4,656 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding removal notice need only contain short and plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction

  2. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP

    437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,716 times
    Holding that an "LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens"

  3. Williams v. Best Buy Company Inc.

    269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,400 times
    Holding that amount in controversy was not “facially apparent” from similar complaint

  4. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.

    281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 828 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a settlement demand was sufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy where plaintiff made no attempt to disavow the letter or offer contrary evidence

  5. Buie v. Extended Stay Hotels

    No. 2:17-cv-02455-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. May. 15, 2018)

    No. 2:17-cv-02455-MCE-AC 05-15-2018 FERDINA BUIE, Plaintiff, v. EXTENDED STAY HOTELS, et. al, Defendant. MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By way of this action, Plaintiff Ferdina Buie ("Plaintiff") seeks damages from Defendant Extended Stay America Management ("Defendant" or "ESA Management"), which owns or operates an Extended Stay hotel in Roseville, California, where Plaintiff allegedly experienced a slip and fall accident on the premises. Plaintiff originally

  6. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Insurance Co

    95 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 11 times

    No. 94-56651 Argued and Submitted May 8, 1996 — Pasadena, California Filed September 11, 1996 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-01189-ABC. Before: Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges. OPINION O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide the proper test to apply to establish subject matter jurisdiction over a removed diversity case in which

  7. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 113,606 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"

  8. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 50,910 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.”

  9. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 28,500 times   199 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  10. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,265 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  11. Section 84 - California

    28 U.S.C. § 84   Cited 1,458 times
    Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California