§Why CasetextPricing

notice of filing of notice of removal

undefined

23 Cited authorities

  1. Leite v. Crane Co.

    749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 1,192 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defense contractor properly removed a case under § 1442 based, in part, on "the Navy's detailed specifications regulating the warnings that equipment manufacturers were required to provide"

  2. Mesa v. California

    489 U.S. 121 (1989)   Cited 683 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 1442 "cannot independently support Art. III `arising under' jurisdiction," and, thus, removal thereunder "must be predicated upon the averment of a federal defense"

  3. Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

    551 U.S. 142 (2007)   Cited 355 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen a company complies with a regulatory order, it does not ordinarily create a significant risk of state-court ‘prejudice.’ A state-court suit brought against such a company is not likely to disable federal officials from taking necessary action designed to enforce federal law, nor to deny a federal forum to an individual entitled to assert a federal immunity claim."

  4. North Dakota v. United States

    495 U.S. 423 (1990)   Cited 177 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a regulatory regime that did not disfavor the Federal Government could not be considered to discriminate against it

  5. Goncalves v. Rady Children's Hosp. San Diego

    865 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2017)   Cited 122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an ancillary proceeding to expunge a removing party's lien was covered by § 1442

  6. Colorado v. Symes

    286 U.S. 510 (1932)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that federal-officer removal requires that a claim be "not without foundation and ... made in good faith"

  7. Stirling v. Minasian

    955 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2020)   Cited 27 times

    No. 18-55834 04-08-2020 Dwight D. STIRLING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Larry MINASIAN, Lt. Col., Erroneously Sued As David Minasian, Defendant-Appellee Corey Lovato (argued), Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant. David Pinchas (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; David M. Harris, Chief, Civil Division; Nicola T. Hanna, United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge Corey Lovato (argued), Phoenix, Arizona,

  8. Boeing Co. v. Movassaghi

    768 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 32 times
    Ruling that the state law "regulate[d] [the federal government's] cleanup activities directly " but also noting that the law "interferes with the functions of the federal government "

  9. Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. Dist. of Columbia

    351 F. Supp. 3d 26 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 15 times
    Holding servicers of federal student loans entitled to challenge newly-enacted District of Columbia statute under which such servicers were required to obtain license, even though District "had not yet denied or revoked the license of a federal loan servicer," nor had any "disclosures . . . yet been ordered"; holding statute preempted as applied

  10. Nationwide Investors v. Miller

    793 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times
    Holding state court subpoena orders directed against federal employees are actions properly removed to federal court

  11. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,739 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  12. Section 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

    28 U.S.C. § 1442   Cited 5,342 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"

  13. Section 552a - Records maintained on individuals

    5 U.S.C. § 552a   Cited 4,582 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Finding that it is a Department of Justice component that has as its principal function the enforcement of criminal laws includ[ing] correctional authorities

  14. Section 1087a - Program authority

    20 U.S.C. § 1087a   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that Direct loans have "the same terms, conditions, and benefits as [FFELP loans]"

  15. Section 5101 - Establishment

    24 Pa. Stat. § 5101   Cited 17 times
    Creating the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency as a body corporate and politic

  16. Section 1087f - Contracts

    20 U.S.C. § 1087f   Cited 14 times

    (a) Contracts for supplies and services (1) In general The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, award contracts for origination, servicing, and collection described in subsection (b). In awarding such contracts, the Secretary shall ensure that such services and supplies are provided at competitive prices. (2) Entities The entities with which the Secretary may enter into contracts shall include only entities which the Secretary determines are qualified to provide such services and supplies

  17. Section 28154 - Monetary penalty

    Cal. Fin. Code § 28154   Cited 1 times

    (a) If a licensee fails to do either of the following, the commissioner shall impose a penalty in a sum of up to one hundred dollars ($100) for every day late: (1) To make any report required by law or by the commissioner within 10 days from the day designated for the making of the report, or within any extension of time granted by the commissioner. (2) To include therein any matter required by law or by the commissioner. (b) The commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the license if

  18. Section 28172 - Violation; civil penalty

    Cal. Fin. Code § 28172   Cited 1 times

    (a) Any person who violates a provision of this division, or any rule or order under this division, shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation. This penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the commissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction. (b) As applied to the penalties for acts in violation of this division, the remedies provided by this section

  19. Section 28108 - Investigations and examination of applicants

    Cal. Fin. Code § 28108   Cited 1 times

    (a) The commissioner shall have the authority to conduct investigations and examinations of an applicant or licensee as follows: (1) For purposes of determining whether an applicant is eligible for a license, or that a licensee is complying with the provisions of this division or any regulation or order of the commissioner, the commissioner may access, receive, and use any books, accounts, records, files, documents, information, or evidence, including, but not limited to, any of the following relating

  20. Section 28152 - Examination of licensees

    Cal. Fin. Code § 28152

    (a) As often as the commissioner deems necessary and appropriate, but at least once every 36 months, the commissioner shall examine the affairs of each licensee for compliance with this division. The commissioner shall appoint suitable persons to perform the examination. The commissioner and his or her appointees may examine the books, records, and documents of the licensee, and may examine the licensee's officers, directors, employees, or agents under oath regarding the licensee's operations. The