§Why CasetextPricing

Request Judicial Notice

undefined

51 Cited authorities

  1. Martin v. Franklin Capital

    546 U.S. 132 (2005)   Cited 4,658 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”

  2. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.

    980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 9,845 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

  3. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA

    582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,889 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied preemption affirmative defense was not a permissible ground for finding fraudulent joinder

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

    303 U.S. 283 (1938)   Cited 5,926 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. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.

    236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,040 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)

  6. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower

    889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018)   Cited 518 times
    Holding that joinder is not fraudulent where there is a mere "possibility" that the plaintiff can state a claim against the defendant

  7. Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,013 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff's admission in open court established amount in controversy

  8. Roby v. McKesson Corp.

    47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 512 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding "there is no basis for excluding evidence of biased personnel management actions so long as that evidence is relevant to prove the communication of a hostile message"

  9. McCabe v. General Foods Corp.

    811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 903 times
    Holding that fraudulent joinder is established when a 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"

  10. Reno v. Baird

    18 Cal.4th 640 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 572 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FEHA's provisions regarding employment discrimination applied only to employers, in contrast to provisions regarding harassment which did apply to individuals as well as employers

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 108,205 times   571 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 48,782 times   148 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 32,273 times   109 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 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,110 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  15. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,414 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  16. Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 20   Cited 10,831 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to "issue orders-including an order for separate trials."

  17. Section 452 - Matters permitting judicial notice

    Cal. Evid. Code § 452   Cited 7,728 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting notice to be taken of the "[o]fficial acts of the . . . judicial departments . . . of any state of the United States"

  18. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 7,112 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

  19. Section 51 - Unruh Civil Rights Act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 51   Cited 4,230 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating ADA violations

  20. Section 84 - California

    28 U.S.C. § 84   Cited 1,349 times
    Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California

  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 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 14 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  23. Rule 2.306 - Service of papers by fax transmission

    Cal. R. 2.306   Cited 12 times

    (a) Service by fax (1)Agreement of parties required Service by fax transmission is permitted only if the parties agree and a written confirmation of that agreement is made. (2)Service on last-given fax number Any notice or other document to be served must be transmitted to a fax machine maintained by the person on whom it is served at the fax machine telephone number as last given by that person on any document that the party has filed in the case and served on the party making service. (b) Service