42 Cited authorities

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain
490 U.S. 826 (1989) Cited 1,789 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where multiple defendants "are jointly and severally liable, it cannot be argued that [one is] indispensable"
Temple v. Synthes Corp.
498 U.S. 5 (1990) Cited 535 times
Holding it was "error to label [alleged] joint tortfeasors as indispensable parties under Rule 19(b) and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice for failure to join those parties"
Zamani v. Carnes
491 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,108 times
Holding that a district court "need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief"
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.
236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,079 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)
Alfred L. Snapp Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico
458 U.S. 592 (1982) Cited 538 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state has a legally protectable interest in enforcing its legal code
Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc.
204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 979 times
Holding that we are bound to follow an earlier decision to the extent it conflicts with a later decision
Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp.
77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,036 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that subject matter jurisdiction determinations are subject to de novo review
Safe Sts. All. v. Hickenlooper
859 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2017) Cited 273 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs need not "cite statistics, appraisals, attempts to sell, or other concrete evidence to quantify their concrete financial loss with actual facts"
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia
142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 472 times
Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees
Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc.
106 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 313 times
Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment
Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 Cited 7,418 times 13 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants
Section 801 - Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances
21 U.S.C. § 801 Cited 7,269 times 77 Legal Analyses
Finding that to effectively control interstate traffic in illegal drugs it is necessary to control intrastate possession of and traffic in those substances

County of San Joaquin, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al.

42 Cited authorities

Holding that, where multiple defendants "are jointly and severally liable, it cannot be argued that [one is] indispensable"

Holding it was "error to label [alleged] joint tortfeasors as indispensable parties under Rule 19(b) and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice for failure to join those parties"

Holding that a district court "need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief"

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 a state has a legally protectable interest in enforcing its legal code

Holding that we are bound to follow an earlier decision to the extent it conflicts with a later decision

Holding that subject matter jurisdiction determinations are subject to de novo review

Holding that plaintiffs need not "cite statistics, appraisals, attempts to sell, or other concrete evidence to quantify their concrete financial loss with actual facts"

Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees

Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment

Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

Finding that to effectively control interstate traffic in illegal drugs it is necessary to control intrastate possession of and traffic in those substances