20 Cited authorities

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
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,595 times
Holding that it was not facially evident from the complaint that the controversy involved more than $75,000 where the plaintiff sought "'in excess' of $10,000 for economic loss, 'in excess' of $10,000 for emotional distress, and 'in excess' of $10,000 for punitive damages"
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.
265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,473 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"
Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,093 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff's admission in open court established amount in controversy
NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC
840 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2016) Cited 458 times
Finding default was not due to excusable neglect because the defendant was "properly served, yet ignored the deadline to respond to the complaint" and gave no "credible, good faith explanation for its apparent bad faith intention to take advantage of the opposing party, interfere with judicial decisionmaking, or otherwise manipulate the legal process"
Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2018) Cited 292 times
Holding the plaintiff's CFRA retaliation claim "fail[ed] because she cannot show that [defendant's] reason for terminating her was pretextual"
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
Lew v. Moss
797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 703 times
Holding that residency can create a rebuttable presumption of domicile supporting diversity of citizenship
Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp.
432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 370 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court properly considered awards in similar cases when determining the amount in controversy
Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Company
157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 327 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not abuse discretion by finding no prejudice to the plaintiff because action against non-diverse defendant could be brought in state court
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"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
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 43 - Authority of court in proceedings before courts; questions determined if new trial granted
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 43 Cited 320 times
Providing that, "[i]n giving its decision, if a new trial be granted, the [appellate] court shall pass upon and determine all the questions of law involved in the case, presented upon . . . appeal, and necessary to the final determination of the case"
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

Removal to Federal Court

20 Cited authorities

Holding that it was not facially evident from the complaint that the controversy involved more than $75,000 where the plaintiff sought "'in excess' of $10,000 for economic loss, 'in excess' of $10,000 for emotional distress, and 'in excess' of $10,000 for punitive damages"

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 plaintiff's admission in open court established amount in controversy

Holding the plaintiff's CFRA retaliation claim "fail[ed] because she cannot show that [defendant's] reason for terminating her was pretextual"

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 that the district court properly considered awards in similar cases when determining the amount in controversy

Holding that the district court did not abuse discretion by finding no prejudice to the plaintiff because action against non-diverse defendant could be brought in state court

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 if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

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, "[i]n giving its decision, if a new trial be granted, the [appellate] court shall pass upon and determine all the questions of law involved in the case, presented upon . . . appeal, and necessary to the final determination of the case"