§Why CasetextPricing

Removal to Federal Court

undefined

40 Cited authorities

  1. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens

    574 U.S. 81 (2014)   Cited 4,869 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding removal notice need only contain short and plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction

  2. Williams v. Best Buy Company Inc.

    269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,435 times
    Holding that amount in controversy was not “facially apparent” from similar complaint

  3. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp.

    261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 584 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

  4. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

    888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2018)   Cited 337 times
    Holding the plaintiff's CFRA retaliation claim "fail[ed] because she cannot show that [defendant's] reason for terminating her was pretextual"

  5. Lewis v. Verizon Communications

    627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 414 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party "need not concede liability" to remove a case to federal court under CAFA.

  6. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia

    142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 520 times
    Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees

  7. Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California

    157 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 230 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that these two statutory sections "involve separate causes of action and proof of different facts"

  8. Simmons v. PCR Technology

    209 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 181 times
    Finding that although the case cited was “not perfectly analogous” because on plaintiff suffered persistent discrimination over a ten-year period whereas the other worked at their place of employment for only four months, it did evidence “that emotional distress damages in a successful employment discrimination case may be substantial”

  9. Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.

    243 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 164 times
    Holding that Song-Beverly Act's civil penalties should be included in the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction

  10. The Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

    199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 153 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding courts assume factual allegations in complaint are true when determining amount in controversy

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 116,362 times   574 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 51,942 times   153 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 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 29,363 times   201 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  14. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,861 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 144 - Bias or prejudice of judge

    28 U.S.C. § 144   Cited 4,788 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring affidavits alleging bias to the "timely"

  16. Section 335.1 - Assault, battery or injury or death caused by wrongful act or negligence

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1   Cited 2,382 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims

  17. Section 337 - Contract, obligation or liability founded upon written instrument; book account; rescission of contract

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337   Cited 1,714 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Governing rescissions of written contracts

  18. Section 340 - Penalty or forfeiture; libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction, payment on forged check, neglect of animal; officer seizing property; good faith improver

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340   Cited 1,598 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Providing a one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising prior to January 1, 2003

  19. Section 84 - California

    28 U.S.C. § 84   Cited 1,521 times
    Defining the Eastern District of California without creating divisions

  20. Section 338 - Liability created by statute; trespass or injury to real property; taking, detaining or injuring goods or chattels; fraud or mistake; bond of public official; notary's bond; slander of title; section 17536, Business and Professions Code; Water Quality Control Act; Section 19, Article 1, California Constitution; division 26, Health and Safety Code; sections 1603.1, 1615, 5650.1, Fish and Game Code; validity of special tax levy; section 51.7, Civil code; violation of FPA or Forestry and Fire Protection rules and regulations; section 26038, Business and Professions code

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338   Cited 1,555 times
    Establishing three-year statute of limitations for California fraud claim

  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 3.220 - Case cover sheet

    Cal. R. 3.220   Cited 12 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

  23. 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