16 Cited authorities

Martin v. Franklin Capital
546 U.S. 132 (2005) Cited 4,918 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 10,297 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conclusory allegation "neither overcomes the 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction, nor satisfies [the defendant]'s burden of setting forth, in the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds" the applicable dollar value
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA
582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,042 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an implied preemption affirmative defense was not a permissible ground for finding fraudulent joinder
Grancare, LLC v. Thrower
889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) Cited 642 times
Holding that joinder is not fraudulent where there is a mere "possibility" that the plaintiff can state a claim against the defendant
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.
236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,111 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that joinder of a party is considered fraudulent if "the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state." (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted)
Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co.
139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 831 times
Holding that only cases that become removable "sometime after the initial commencement of the action" are "barred by the one-year exception"
Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
5 F. Supp. 2d 804 (N.D. Cal. 1998) Cited 270 times
Finding fraudulent joinder of insurance agent-defendant because "under settled California law . . . an insurance agent acting within the course and scope of his employment cannot be held liable for damages resulting from a negligent failure to insure."
Jimenez v. Superior Court
29 Cal.4th 473 (Cal. 2002) Cited 226 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product . . . causes to other portions of a larger product . . . into which the former has been incorporated"
Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
625 F.2d 273 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 171 times
Holding that Rule 21 "grants a federal district or appellate court the discretionary power to perfect its diversity jurisdiction by dropping a nondiverse party provided the nondiverse party is not indispensable to the action under Rule 19"
Sabicer v. Ford Motor Co.
362 F. Supp. 3d 837 (C.D. Cal. 2019) Cited 17 times
Holding the economic loss rule did not bar recovery in tort for engine damage or vehicle damage both caused by other subcomponents of the vehicle
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"
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,714 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 338 - Liability created by statute; trespass or injury to real property; taking, detaining or injuring goods or chattels; fraud or mistake; bond of public official; notary's bond; slander of title; section 17536, Business and Professions Code; Water Quality Control Act; Section 19, Article 1, California Constitution; division 26, Health and Safety Code; sections 1603.1, 1615, 5650.1, Fish and Game Code; validity of special tax levy; violation of FPA or Forestry and Fire Protection rules and regulations
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338 Cited 1,521 times
Setting three-year statute of limitations for a liability based on statute like the CSA
Rule 2 - One Form of Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 Cited 702 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing for "one form of action to be known as 'civil action,'" in lieu of discretely labeled actions at law and suits in equity
Section 1791 - Generally
Cal. Civ. Code § 1791 Cited 71 times 3 Legal Analyses
Defining the class of protected consumer goods as "any new product or part thereof"

Removal to Federal Court Lifted

16 Cited authorities

Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”

Holding that an implied preemption affirmative defense was not a permissible ground for finding fraudulent joinder

Holding that joinder is not fraudulent where there is a mere "possibility" that the plaintiff can state a claim against the defendant

Holding that joinder of a party is considered fraudulent if "the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state." (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted)

Holding that only cases that become removable "sometime after the initial commencement of the action" are "barred by the one-year exception"

Finding fraudulent joinder of insurance agent-defendant because "under settled California law . . . an insurance agent acting within the course and scope of his employment cannot be held liable for damages resulting from a negligent failure to insure."

Holding "the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product . . . causes to other portions of a larger product . . . into which the former has been incorporated"

Holding that Rule 21 "grants a federal district or appellate court the discretionary power to perfect its diversity jurisdiction by dropping a nondiverse party provided the nondiverse party is not indispensable to the action under Rule 19"

Holding the economic loss rule did not bar recovery in tort for engine damage or vehicle damage both caused by other subcomponents of the vehicle

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 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"

Setting three-year statute of limitations for a liability based on statute like the CSA

Providing for "one form of action to be known as 'civil action,'" in lieu of discretely labeled actions at law and suits in equity

Defining the class of protected consumer goods as "any new product or part thereof"