Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 10,078 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Cab Co.
303 U.S. 283 (1938) Cited 6,045 times 14 Legal AnalysesHolding that when a complaint filed pleads more than the jurisdictional amount required for federal jurisdiction, "the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith" and that "[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal"
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.
372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,152 timesHolding that a defendant must carry its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because plaintiff's complaint “[fell] short of even seeking the threshold amount”
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co
102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,321 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper
Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.
281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 806 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that a settlement demand was sufficient to satisfy the amount in controversy where plaintiff made no attempt to disavow the letter or offer contrary evidence
Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity
994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998) Cited 253 timesHolding "since a defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be stipulated to or waived, attempting to force the plaintiff to enter a stipulation regarding the potential amount of damages would serve no effect in determining the actual amount in controversy at the time of removal"
Babasa v. Lenscrafters
498 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 155 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that failure to comply with section 1446 makes remand appropriate
Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.
704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 301 timesHolding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 111,248 times 572 Legal AnalysesHolding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 49,986 times 149 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 21,736 times 141 Legal AnalysesGranting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
Section 84 - California
28 U.S.C. § 84 Cited 1,409 timesStating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California