39 Cited authorities

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

    482 U.S. 386 (1987)   Cited 11,113 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"
  2. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.

    980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 10,020 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
  3. Abrego Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Co.

    443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 4,407 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 4,332 times   27 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 1,511 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. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.

    425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 888 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"
  7. Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc.

    204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 976 times
    Holding that we are bound to follow an earlier decision to the extent it conflicts with a later decision
  8. Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp.

    77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,035 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that subject matter jurisdiction determinations are subject to de novo review
  9. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander

    246 U.S. 276 (1918)   Cited 2,834 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 461 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 110,400 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"
  12. Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 41   Cited 106,487 times   192 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 21,568 times   141 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 11,118 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 7,337 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants
  16. Section 474 - Plaintiff ignorant of name of defendant

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474   Cited 483 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Deering Sup. 2004
  17. Section 4 - Code establishes law of state

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 4   Cited 274 times
    Governing an attorney's handling of a client's property
  18. Section 378 - Joinder as plaintiffs

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 378   Cited 116 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"