23 Cited authorities

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (2010) Cited 4,414 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 2,793 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"
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles
568 U.S. 588 (2013) Cited 719 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff may not evade CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class would seek damages below CAFA's jurisdictional threshold
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.
265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,499 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.
372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,188 times
Holding that a defendant must carry its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because plaintiff's complaint “[fell] short of even seeking the threshold amount”
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co
102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,375 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper
Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,108 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff's admission in open court established amount in controversy
Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC
728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 394 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that “we are bound by prior panel decisions ... and can only reexamine them when their ‘reasoning or theory’ of that authority is ‘clearly irreconcilable’ with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority”
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia
142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 503 times
Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees
Lew v. Moss
797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 709 times
Holding that residency can create a rebuttable presumption of domicile supporting diversity of citizenship
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 114,689 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 51,301 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 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,854 times 199 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 22,511 times 141 Legal Analyses
Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

Notice

23 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 a plaintiff may not evade CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class would seek damages below CAFA's jurisdictional threshold

Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"

Holding that a defendant must carry its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because plaintiff's complaint “[fell] short of even seeking the threshold amount”

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

Holding plaintiff's admission in open court established amount in controversy

Holding that “we are bound by prior panel decisions ... and can only reexamine them when their ‘reasoning or theory’ of that authority is ‘clearly irreconcilable’ with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority”

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

Holding that residency can create a rebuttable presumption of domicile supporting diversity of citizenship

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.”

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