16 Cited authorities

Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 10,230 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
Emrich v. Touche Ross Co.
846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 4,060 times
Holding proceedings and determinations of the courts are a matter of public record suitable for judicial notice
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.
265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,451 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"
Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C.
374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,152 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen
McPhail v. Deere Co.
529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008) Cited 760 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant established the requisite amount in controversy because, even though plaintiff never pleaded a specific amount of damages, plaintiff's allegations of wrongful death and the nature of the damages sought supported a claim in excess of $75,000
Destfino v. Reiswig
630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 420 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that preventing later-served defendants from removing actions to federal court "could deprive some defendants of their right to a federal forum . . . and encourage plaintiffs to engage in unfair manipulation by delaying service on defendants most likely to remove"
Lewis v. Verizon Communications
627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 390 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party "need not concede liability" to remove a case to federal court under CAFA.
Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC
707 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 245 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to attach certain state documents under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 is a "de minimis procedural defect" that is curable and does not warrant remand
Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.
704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 311 times
Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes
Yokeno v. Sekiguchi
754 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 36 times
Holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1332 does not confer jurisdiction in cases between a permanent resident alien and alien defendants
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 112,712 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"
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 50,588 times 151 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.”
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 49,437 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1446 Cited 22,085 times 141 Legal Analyses
Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

notice to adverse parties and state court of removal of case to federa

16 Cited authorities

Holding proceedings and determinations of the courts are a matter of public record suitable for judicial notice

Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"

Holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen

Holding that defendant established the requisite amount in controversy because, even though plaintiff never pleaded a specific amount of damages, plaintiff's allegations of wrongful death and the nature of the damages sought supported a claim in excess of $75,000

Holding that preventing later-served defendants from removing actions to federal court "could deprive some defendants of their right to a federal forum . . . and encourage plaintiffs to engage in unfair manipulation by delaying service on defendants most likely to remove"

Holding that a party "need not concede liability" to remove a case to federal court under CAFA.

Holding that failure to attach certain state documents under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 is a "de minimis procedural defect" that is curable and does not warrant remand

Holding state law inapplicable to the question of an individual's citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes

Holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1332 does not confer jurisdiction in cases between a permanent resident alien and alien defendants

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

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.”

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim