§Why CasetextPricing

defendants notice to plaintiff and clerk of the california superior c

undefined

26 Cited authorities

  1. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP

    437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,745 times
    Holding that an "LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens"

  2. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.

    265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,498 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"

  3. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,188 times
    Holding that a defendant must carry its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because plaintiff's complaint “[fell] short of even seeking the threshold amount”

  4. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg

    134 F.3d 1250 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,428 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statutory damages, punitive damages, and potential attorneys' fees must be included in calculating the amount in controversy in a diversity case

  5. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp.

    261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 577 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the value of unnamed class members' claims cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1367

  6. Six Mexican Wkrs. v. Ariz. Citrus Growers

    904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 743 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding the "district court did not abuse its discretion by calculating attorneys' fees as a percentage of the total fund" in a similar statutory regime where discrete violations totaled either $250 or $500

  7. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia

    142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 503 times
    Holding that attorney's fees can be counted toward the amount in controversy requirement when a statute allows such fees

  8. Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp.

    432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 373 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly considered awards in similar cases when determining the amount in controversy

  9. Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Company

    157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 336 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse discretion by finding no prejudice to the plaintiff because action against non-diverse defendant could be brought in state court

  10. White v. FCI USA, Inc.

    319 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2003)   Cited 252 times
    Holding summary judgment was proper when only evidence presented was employee's subjective interpretation of supervisor's remarks rather than being asked or required to commit an unlawful act

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 114,655 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. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 51,292 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.”

  13. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 50,911 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."

  14. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,503 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  15. Section 84 - California

    28 U.S.C. § 84   Cited 1,487 times
    Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California

  16. Section 1010.6 - Electronic service of document

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6   Cited 41 times
    Authorizing trial courts to adopt local rules permitting electronic filing of documents

  17. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007