36 Cited authorities

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens
574 U.S. 81 (2014) Cited 4,743 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding removal notice need only contain short and plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.
265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,499 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"
Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,272 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co
102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,375 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper
Arias v. Residence Inn By Marriott, Ltd.
936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019) Cited 306 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[a]n assumption may be reasonable if it is founded on the allegations of the complaint."
Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc.
902 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2018) Cited 232 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding removal by an in-state defendant is not precluded under Section 1441(b) where that defendant removes before it has been “properly joined and served.”
Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC
840 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2016) Cited 179 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that the "amount at stake" in litigation involves anything other than interest and costs that "entail a payment by the defendant," including compensatory damages and "the cost of complying with an injunction"
Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.
536 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 208 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding it reasonable to base jurisdictional amount on maximum penalty amount where complaint had specifically requested the maximum statutory penalty even though it was possible that less could be awarded at trial
Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern
393 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 210 times
Holding that "the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal"
The Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002) Cited 150 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding courts assume factual allegations in complaint are true when determining amount in controversy
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 114,689 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 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 100,045 times 137 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 51,301 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.”
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,882 times 1250 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 29,063 times 191 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,854 times 199 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1446 Cited 22,511 times 141 Legal Analyses
Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
Section 158 - Appeals
28 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 18,366 times 57 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts appellate jurisdiction over "final judgments, orders, and decrees" of bankruptcy courts
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 18,268 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1407 Cited 7,123 times 106 Legal Analyses
Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

Removal to Federal Court

36 Cited authorities

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

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 that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

Holding that "[a]n assumption may be reasonable if it is founded on the allegations of the complaint."

Holding removal by an in-state defendant is not precluded under Section 1441(b) where that defendant removes before it has been “properly joined and served.”

Finding that the "amount at stake" in litigation involves anything other than interest and costs that "entail a payment by the defendant," including compensatory damages and "the cost of complying with an injunction"

Finding it reasonable to base jurisdictional amount on maximum penalty amount where complaint had specifically requested the maximum statutory penalty even though it was possible that less could be awarded at trial

Holding that "the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal"

Holding courts assume factual allegations in complaint are true when determining amount in controversy

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

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.”

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

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

Granting district courts appellate jurisdiction over "final judgments, orders, and decrees" of bankruptcy courts

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts