34 Cited authorities

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
Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (2010) Cited 4,338 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”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
545 U.S. 546 (2005) Cited 4,276 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement
Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing
526 U.S. 344 (1999) Cited 2,725 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"
Lincoln Prop. v. Roche
546 U.S. 81 (2005) Cited 1,935 times
Holding that because the plaintiffs did not name as a defendant a party who had an interest in the action, the defendant need not have alleged that party's citizenship upon removal
Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.
425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 924 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "notice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry"
Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,230 times
Holding that a plaintiff's claim that she is a beneficiary by virtue of state law presents a federal question under § 1132
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"
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
Lewis v. Verizon Communications
627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 396 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party "need not concede liability" to remove a case to federal court under CAFA.
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 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.”
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
Section 1021.5 - Attorney's fees in action resulting in enforcement of important right affecting public interest
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 Cited 1,751 times 19 Legal Analyses
Providing that "a court may award" attorney's fees "to a successful party "
Section 84 - California
28 U.S.C. § 84 Cited 1,458 times
Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California
Section 1102.5 - Whistleblower protection
Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 Cited 1,235 times 39 Legal Analyses
Making it unlawful for an employer to impose any policy which "prevent an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency ... or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance"
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
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

Removal to Federal Court

34 Cited authorities

Holding removal notice need only contain short and plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction

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 because the plaintiffs did not name as a defendant a party who had an interest in the action, the defendant need not have alleged that party's citizenship upon removal

Holding that "notice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry"

Holding that a plaintiff's claim that she is a beneficiary by virtue of state law presents a federal question under § 1132

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"

Holding that the value of unnamed class members' claims cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Holding that a party "need not concede liability" to remove a case to federal court under CAFA.

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.”

Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

Providing that "a court may award" attorney's fees "to a successful party "

Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California

Making it unlawful for an employer to impose any policy which "prevent an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency ... or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance"