§Why CasetextPricing

Asis Internet Services et al v. Active Response Group, Inc.

MOTION for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292

26 Cited authorities

  1. Mine Workers v. Gibbs

    383 U.S. 715 (1966)   Cited 17,832 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supplemental jurisdiction is a "doctrine of discretion"

  2. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,318 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  3. Cmax, Inc. v. Hall

    300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962)   Cited 1,262 times
    Holding that a delay "is not the kind of prejudice which should move a court to deny a requested postponement"

  4. In re Cement Antitr. Litigation

    673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that interlocutory appeal is only justified under "exceptional circumstances."

  5. Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro

    921 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 414 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it continues to be true that only 'exceptional circumstances [will] justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment.'"

  6. Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co.

    309 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 210 times
    Holding that, where Louisiana statute provided for award of attorney's fees, the calculation of the amount in controversy should include potential attorney's fees

  7. Fasano v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

    457 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "by no stretch of the imagination can . . . the [NJ]LAD be said to 'parallel' or 'mirror' [its] federal counterpart[]"

  8. Kuehner v. Dickinson & Co.

    84 F.3d 316 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding order staying action pending completion of arbitration proceedings "involve a controlling question on law"

  9. Muniz v. Sabol

    517 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 61 times
    Upholding the BOP's newly promulgated community confinement regulations

  10. In re Merrill Lynch Relocation Management

    812 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 102 times
    Rejecting constitutional challenge to rule allowing court to require non-resident parties to post cost bonds

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 347,794 times   925 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1291 - Final decisions of district courts

    28 U.S.C. § 1291   Cited 89,068 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"

  13. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 62,138 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  14. Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions

    28 U.S.C. § 1292   Cited 22,358 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

  15. Section 7706 - Enforcement generally

    15 U.S.C. § 7706   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Creating private right of action for providers of Internet access service

  16. Section 7707 - Effect on other laws

    15 U.S.C. § 7707   Cited 57 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing CAN-SPAM does not preempt state "trespass" laws