§Why CasetextPricing

Notice

undefined

12 Cited authorities

  1. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.

    980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 10,532 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  2. St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Cab Co.

    303 U.S. 283 (1938)   Cited 6,235 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff "may resort to the expedient of suing for less than the jurisdictional amount ... though he would be justly entitled to more"

  3. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,209 times
    Holding 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”

  4. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co

    102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,409 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

  5. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.

    281 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 852 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  6. Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity

    994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998)   Cited 260 times
    Holding "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"

  7. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.

    704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 335 times
    Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes

  8. Babasa v. Lenscrafters

    498 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 162 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to comply with section 1446 makes remand appropriate

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 116,150 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 51,857 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 22,808 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  12. Section 84 - California

    28 U.S.C. § 84   Cited 1,511 times
    Defining the Eastern District of California without creating divisions