§Why CasetextPricing

Bank of New York Mellon v. Charles Barker, III

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Remand to State Court Motion to Remand 9 .

11 Cited authorities

  1. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

    545 U.S. 546 (2005)   Cited 4,143 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement

  2. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

    424 U.S. 800 (1976)   Cited 8,163 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 110,797 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"

  4. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 96,943 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  5. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,380 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"

  6. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 49,812 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.”

  7. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 32,961 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

  8. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,640 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  9. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 14,903 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

  10. Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 17   Cited 9,104 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"

  11. Section 1640 - Civil liability

    15 U.S.C. § 1640   Cited 4,910 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding "any creditor who fails to comply" liable, with creditors defined within § 1602(g) as persons