§Why CasetextPricing

notice to state court of removal

undefined

27 Cited authorities

  1. Hertz Corp. v. Friend

    559 U.S. 77 (2010)   Cited 4,399 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporation's principal place of business is “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities”

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

    545 U.S. 546 (2005)   Cited 4,321 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

  3. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n

    432 U.S. 333 (1977)   Cited 4,535 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading

  4. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,691 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  5. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,185 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”

  6. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co

    102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,371 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

  7. Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,104 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff's admission in open court established amount in controversy

  8. Destfino v. Reiswig

    630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 434 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"

  9. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp.

    261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 576 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

  10. Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    98 Cal.App.4th 1158 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 237 times
    Holding on summary judgment motion that inspection fees in that case did not violate UCL, based in part on evidence submitted by defendant regarding legitimacy of the conduct and showing that conduct was not unfair or unethical

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 114,466 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 51,230 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 50,778 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 22,464 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 51 - Unruh Civil Rights Act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 51   Cited 5,022 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating ADA violations

  16. Section 51.5 - Business discrimination

    Cal. Civ. Code § 51.5   Cited 205 times
    Prohibiting discrimination against person "associated with" person who is, or is perceived to be, disabled