34 Cited authorities

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (2010) Cited 4,413 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”
Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle
429 U.S. 274 (1977) Cited 9,151 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"
Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 10,382 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conclusory allegation "neither overcomes the 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction, nor satisfies [the defendant]'s burden of setting forth, in the removal petition itself, the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds" the applicable dollar value
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,615 times
Holding that it was not facially evident from the complaint that the controversy involved more than $75,000 where the plaintiff sought "'in excess' of $10,000 for economic loss, 'in excess' of $10,000 for emotional distress, and 'in excess' of $10,000 for punitive damages"
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
298 U.S. 178 (1936) Cited 5,490 times
Holding that a plaintiff, when challenged, must provide "competent proof" supporting jurisdictional claim
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"
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”
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co
102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,375 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.
506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 775 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a complaint "is unclear and does not specify 'a total amount in controversy,' the proper burden of proof . . . is proof by a preponderance of the evidence"
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins
305 U.S. 534 (1939) Cited 1,100 times
Holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”
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"
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.”
Section 226 - Itemized statement of wages
Cal. Lab. Code § 226 Cited 2,323 times 127 Legal Analyses
Providing only statutory penalties
Section 201 - Computation and payment of wages upon discharge
Cal. Lab. Code § 201 Cited 1,812 times 21 Legal Analyses
Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"
Section 1021.5 - Attorney's fees in action resulting in enforcement of important right affecting public interest
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 Cited 1,759 times 19 Legal Analyses
Providing that "a court may award" attorney's fees "to a successful party "
Section 203 - Failure to pay; penalties
Cal. Lab. Code § 203 Cited 1,687 times 25 Legal Analyses
Providing that any willfully unpaid wages "shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced"
Section 2699 - Civil penalty; civil action by aggrieved employee to recover
Cal. Lab. Code § 2699 Cited 1,355 times 34 Legal Analyses
Providing that "[a]ny employee who prevails in any action" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
Section 512 - Meal periods
Cal. Lab. Code § 512 Cited 1,188 times 33 Legal Analyses
Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted
Section 1174 - Duties of employers
Cal. Lab. Code § 1174 Cited 390 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring employers to keep payroll records of hours worked daily by employees

Lippold v. Godiva Chocolatiers Inc.

34 Cited authorities

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”

Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"

Holding that it was not facially evident from the complaint that the controversy involved more than $75,000 where the plaintiff sought "'in excess' of $10,000 for economic loss, 'in excess' of $10,000 for emotional distress, and 'in excess' of $10,000 for punitive damages"

Holding that a plaintiff, when challenged, must provide "competent proof" supporting jurisdictional claim

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"

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”

Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

Holding that when a complaint "is unclear and does not specify 'a total amount in controversy,' the proper burden of proof . . . is proof by a preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”

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

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.”

Providing only statutory penalties

Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"

Providing that "a court may award" attorney's fees "to a successful party "

Providing that any willfully unpaid wages "shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced"

Providing that "[a]ny employee who prevails in any action" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees

Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted

Requiring employers to keep payroll records of hours worked daily by employees