23 Cited authorities

Martin v. Franklin Capital
546 U.S. 132 (2005) Cited 4,849 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”
United Food Local 919 v. Centermark Properties
30 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 1,107 times
Holding that the party asserting jurisdiction must support challenged jurisdictional facts "with competent proof and justify its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence"
Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc.
538 U.S. 691 (2003) Cited 156 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a defendant removes a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the burden is on a plaintiff to find an express exception to removal
In re Methyl Tertiary
488 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 388 times
Holding that even if Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency expected defendants to use MTBE, defendants were unable to show they were "acting under federal officers when they added MTBE, and not some approved alternative, to their reformulated gasoline"
California Public Employees' v. Worldcom, Inc.
368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 340 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 22 does not bar removal under § 1452
Plumbers' Union v. Nomura Asset Acceptance
632 F.3d 762 (1st Cir. 2011) Cited 162 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that investment ratings were opinions about the value and prospects of certificates, not statements of fact
In re Nasdaq Market Makers Antitrust
929 F. Supp. 174 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Cited 82 times
Finding state law claim to be a "well-disguised federal claim" where, inter alia, "the Alabama statute makes illegal essentially the same acts prohibited by the federal antitrust laws"
Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp.
650 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 49 times
In Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp., 650 F.3d 163(2d Cir. 2011), the Second Circuit affirmed an attorneys' fee award following a removal attempt that was predicated on federal claims raised in a third-party complaint in violation of the well-pleaded complaint doctrine.
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited
676 F. Supp. 2d 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 40 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that shareholder derivative suits are not "mass actions" under the Class Action Fairness Act because " derivative suit is neither a claim by multiple plaintiffs consolidated by State court rules, nor a class action in disguise"
Villano ex Rel. Villano v. Kohl's Dept. Stores
362 F. Supp. 2d 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Cited 13 times
Deciding that § 1447(c)'s revised language means that a district court must "remand [an] action if at any time before final judgment the basis for federal jurisdiction ceases to exist, irrespective of whether removal was proper at the time it was made."
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 112,086 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 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 98,005 times 136 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 50,321 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.”
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,295 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
28 U.S.C. § 1442 Cited 5,149 times 88 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"
Section 1345 - United States as plaintiff
28 U.S.C. § 1345 Cited 2,933 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting the district courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States"
Section 77v - Jurisdiction of offenses and suits
15 U.S.C. § 77v Cited 1,052 times 28 Legal Analyses
Granting "concurrent" jurisdiction
Section 4617 - Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
12 U.S.C. § 4617 Cited 667 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting the FHFA the power to “operate” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and “to conduct all [of their] business”
Section 77p - Additional remedies; limitation on remedies
15 U.S.C. § 77p Cited 449 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing certain securities class actions to be removed to federal court
Section 1452 - Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
12 U.S.C. § 1452 Cited 302 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that Freddie “shall be exempt from all [state and local] taxation, ... except that any real property of [Freddie] shall be subject to State local taxation to the same extent ... as other real property is taxed”

Federal Housing Finance Agency v. General Electric Company et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”

Holding that the party asserting jurisdiction must support challenged jurisdictional facts "with competent proof and justify its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that when a defendant removes a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the burden is on a plaintiff to find an express exception to removal

Holding that even if Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency expected defendants to use MTBE, defendants were unable to show they were "acting under federal officers when they added MTBE, and not some approved alternative, to their reformulated gasoline"

Holding that § 22 does not bar removal under § 1452

Holding that investment ratings were opinions about the value and prospects of certificates, not statements of fact

Finding state law claim to be a "well-disguised federal claim" where, inter alia, "the Alabama statute makes illegal essentially the same acts prohibited by the federal antitrust laws"

In Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp., 650 F.3d 163(2d Cir. 2011), the Second Circuit affirmed an attorneys' fee award following a removal attempt that was predicated on federal claims raised in a third-party complaint in violation of the well-pleaded complaint doctrine.

Holding that shareholder derivative suits are not "mass actions" under the Class Action Fairness Act because " derivative suit is neither a claim by multiple plaintiffs consolidated by State court rules, nor a class action in disguise"

Deciding that § 1447(c)'s revised language means that a district court must "remand [an] action if at any time before final judgment the basis for federal jurisdiction ceases to exist, irrespective of whether removal was proper at the time it was made."

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

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

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 with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"

Granting the district courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States"

Granting "concurrent" jurisdiction

Granting the FHFA the power to “operate” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and “to conduct all [of their] business”

Allowing certain securities class actions to be removed to federal court

Providing that Freddie “shall be exempt from all [state and local] taxation, ... except that any real property of [Freddie] shall be subject to State local taxation to the same extent ... as other real property is taxed”