§Why CasetextPricing

defendant equinox holdings inc s notice to state court and to advers

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens

    574 U.S. 81 (2014)   Cited 4,827 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding removal notice need only contain short and plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction

  2. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co.

    31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994)   Cited 2,032 times
    Holding that when the complaint states an amount in controversy below the jurisdictional requirement, the removing defendant must prove "to a legal certainty" that the claim exceeds the required amount in controversy

  3. Williams v. Best Buy Company Inc.

    269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,426 times
    Holding that amount in controversy was not “facially apparent” from similar complaint

  4. Angus v. Shiley Inc.

    989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 422 times
    Holding that plaintiff's stipulation that damages did not exceed jurisdictional amount "has no legal significance because a plaintiff following removal cannot destroy federal jurisdiction simply by amending a complaint that initially satisfied the monetary floor."

  5. Simmons v. PCR Technology

    209 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 180 times
    Finding that although the case cited was “not perfectly analogous” because on plaintiff suffered persistent discrimination over a ten-year period whereas the other worked at their place of employment for only four months, it did evidence “that emotional distress damages in a successful employment discrimination case may be substantial”

  6. The Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

    199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 153 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding courts assume factual allegations in complaint are true when determining amount in controversy

  7. Goldberg v. CPC International, Inc.

    678 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that attorneys' fees sought by class members cannot be aggregated for purposes of determining the amount in controversy

  8. Alvarado v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

    Case No.: 18cv611-MMA (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2018)

    Case No.: 18cv611-MMA (NLS) 06-05-2018 ANNA ALVARADO and CHRISTINE TROTTER, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant. HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; [Doc. No. 11] REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT Plaintiffs Anna Alvarado and Christine Trotter ("Plaintiffs") bring this action against Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("Home Depot") alleging, inter alia, unfair business practices and violations of the California Labor Code. Home Depot removed

  9. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Insurance Co

    95 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 11 times

    No. 94-56651 Argued and Submitted May 8, 1996 — Pasadena, California Filed September 11, 1996 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-01189-ABC. Before: Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges. OPINION O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide the proper test to apply to establish subject matter jurisdiction over a removed diversity case in which

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 115,787 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"

  11. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 51,710 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.”

  12. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 29,171 times   200 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  13. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,725 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  14. Section 85 - Colorado

    28 U.S.C. § 85   Cited 54 times

    Colorado constitutes one judicial district. Court shall be held at Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Grand Junction, Montrose, Pueblo, and Sterling. 28 U.S.C. § 85 June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 875; Pub. L. 98-620, title IV, §409, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3362; Pub. L. 108-455, §5, Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 3629; Pub. L. 108-482, §301, 118 Stat. 3918. HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §146 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §73, 36 Stat. 1108; June 12, 1916, ch. 143