§Why CasetextPricing

Removal to Federal Court

undefined

40 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. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain

    490 U.S. 826 (1989)   Cited 1,808 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where multiple defendants "are jointly and severally liable, it cannot be argued that [one is] indispensable"

  3. Abrego Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Co.

    443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 4,505 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the silence of the Class Action Fairness Act regarding the burden of proving removal jurisdiction indicated Congressional intent to leave intact the common law rule placing the burden on the defendant

  4. St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Cab Co.

    303 U.S. 283 (1938)   Cited 6,128 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a complaint filed pleads more than the jurisdictional amount required for federal jurisdiction, "the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith" and that "[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal"

  5. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc.

    775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 788 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is sufficient to "contest[ an] assumption" without "assert[ing] an alternative [assumption] grounded in real evidence"

  6. 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

  7. Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC

    899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018)   Cited 502 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if a plaintiff is entitled under a contract or statute to future attorney's fees, then "such fees are at stake in the litigation and should be included in the amount in controversy"

  8. In re Briscoe

    448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 578 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a district court cannot delve into the merits of a claim in a fraudulent-joinder inquiry

  9. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp.

    261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 568 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the value of unnamed class members' claims cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1367

  10. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia

    142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 497 times
    Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees

  11. 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"

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 99,236 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 63,426 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  14. 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.”

  15. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,078 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  16. 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

  17. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 7,615 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

  18. Section 2301 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 2301   Cited 2,549 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Including as consumers those entitled to enforce a warranty "under applicable State law"

  19. Section 1653 - Amendment of pleadings to show jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1653   Cited 2,464 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Permitting amendment of defective allegations of jurisdiction

  20. Section 2310 - Remedies in consumer disputes

    15 U.S.C. § 2310   Cited 1,631 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Permitting recovery of "a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended)"

  21. Rule 3.400 - Definition

    Cal. R. 3.400   Cited 30 times

    (a) Definition A "complex case" is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel. (b) Factors In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve: (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal

  22. Rule 3.220 - Case cover sheet

    Cal. R. 3.220   Cited 11 times

    (a) Cover sheet required The first paper filed in an action or proceeding must be accompanied by a case cover sheet as required in (b). The cover sheet must be on a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and must be filed in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. If the plaintiff indicates on the cover sheet that the case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. or a collections case under rule 3.740, the plaintiff must serve a copy of the cover sheet with the complaint. In all other

  23. Rule 3.402 - Complex case counterdesignations

    Cal. R. 3.402   Cited 1 times

    (a) Noncomplex counterdesignation If a Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating an action as a complex case has been filed and served and the court has not previously declared the action to be a complex case, a defendant may file and serve no later than its first appearance a counter Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating the action as not a complex case. The court must decide, with or without a hearing, whether the action is a complex case within 30 days after the filing of the