12 Cited authorities

  1. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.

    980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 9,834 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 5,915 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"
  3. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,119 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 1,284 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 793 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a settlement letter reflected a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's claim absent any contrary evidence
  6. Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident Indemnity

    994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998)   Cited 247 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. Babasa v. Lenscrafters

    498 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 151 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to comply with section 1446 makes remand appropriate
  8. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.

    704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 285 times
    Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes
  9. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 108,104 times   571 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 48,742 times   148 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 21,091 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 1,347 times
    Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California