39 Cited authorities

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

    482 U.S. 386 (1987)   Cited 8,657 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding pre-empted "claims founded directly on rights created by collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement"
  2. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.

    980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 7,636 times
    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
  3. Abrego Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Co.

    443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 3,619 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the silence of the Class Action Fairness Act regarding the burden of proving removal jurisdiction indicated Congressional intent to leave intact the common law rule placing the burden on the defendant
  4. Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets

    313 U.S. 100 (1941)   Cited 3,816 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that case was improperly removed: "Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined."
  5. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.

    319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,029 times
    Holding that it was not facially evident from the complaint that the controversy involved more than $75,000 where the plaintiff sought "'in excess' of $10,000 for economic loss, 'in excess' of $10,000 for emotional distress, and 'in excess' of $10,000 for punitive damages"
  6. Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc.

    204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 842 times
    Holding that we are bound to follow an earlier decision to the extent it conflicts with a later decision
  7. Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp.

    77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 931 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that subject matter jurisdiction determinations are subject to de novo review
  8. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.

    425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 643 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "notice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry"
  9. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander

    246 U.S. 276 (1918)   Cited 2,549 times
    Holding that removal based on actions of defendant was improper, "in the absence of voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff"
  10. Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York

    790 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 383 times
    Holding that the district court properly assumed jurisdiction over a post-judgment motion once the court of appeals issued its mandate
  11. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 85,954 times   521 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. Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 41   Cited 63,656 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"
  13. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 15,346 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
  14. Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 20   Cited 7,141 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to "issue orders-including an order for separate trials."
  15. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 4,872 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts "considerable flexibility" in managing civil litigation and authorizing the Court "at any time, on just terms" to add or drop a party and/or sever any claim against a party
  16. Section 474

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474   Cited 273 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing for suit against defendants designated by fictitious names
  17. Section 378

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 378   Cited 59 times
    Providing that joinder is proper in California state courts when plaintiffs assert a right "arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences" and "if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action"
  18. Section 4

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 4   Cited 51 times

    The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. The Code establishes the law of this State respecting the subjects to which it relates, and its provisions and all proceedings under it are to be liberally construed, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 4