§Why CasetextPricing

Jones v. Masterank America, Inc., et al

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition

11 Cited authorities

  1. Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

    841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988)   Cited 1,435 times
    Holding that the removing party did not discharge its burden to prove complete diversity and improper joinder, that "the district court erred by failing to address the important jurisdictional issues before reaching the merits of the case," and that the district court's failure to assess its own jurisdiction necessitated remand

  2. Harper v. Autoalliance Intern., Inc.

    392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 530 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one attorney of record may sign the notice of removal and certify that the remaining co-defendants consent to removal

  3. Proctor v. Vishay Inter

    584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 324 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "SLUSA does not require the dismissal of all non-precluded claims appearing in the same complaint as a precluded claim"

  4. Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co.

    785 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir. 2015)   Cited 190 times
    Holding that non-removing defendant sufficiently consented when the notice of removal stated that the non-removing defendant had consented and the non-removing defendant later ratified that statement

  5. Mayo v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty.

    713 F.3d 735 (4th Cir. 2013)   Cited 82 times
    Holding not all parties are required to submit writing to the court indicating consent to removal

  6. Chicago, Rock Island c. Ry. Co. v. Martin

    178 U.S. 245 (1900)   Cited 496 times
    Holding that all defendants must consent to or join in a petition for removal

  7. Bisso Marine Co. v. Techcrane Int'l, LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0375 SECTION "F" (E.D. La. Sep. 10, 2014)   Cited 18 times
    In Bisso Marine Co. v. Techcrane Int'l, LLC, No. 14-375, 2014 WL 4489618 (E.D. La. Sept. 10, 2014), this Court considered and rejected the defendants' interpretation of the effect of the 2011 amendments to the general removal statute.

  8. Mendoza v. Hicks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1455 SECTION "F" (E.D. La. Jun. 17, 2015)

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1455 SECTION "F" 06-17-2015 LIONEL MENDOZA v. TRACEY HICKS, ET AL. MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the plaintiff's motion to remand. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. Background This suit arises from a commercial auto accident that occurred on October 14, 2014, in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. Mr. Mendoza filed suit in state court in March 2015. On May 1, 2015, one of the several defendants, Berkshire Hathaway

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 112,114 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"

  10. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 50,340 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.”

  11. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,952 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim