§Why CasetextPricing

Santiago v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Remand to State Court

11 Cited authorities

  1. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co

    102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,407 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants bears the burden to show that removal is proper

  2. Lupo v. Human Affairs International, Inc.

    28 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 655 times
    Holding that removal based on diversity jurisdiction is improper “if the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, and the defendant's notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount”

  3. Gardynski-Leschuck v. Ford Motor Company

    142 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 222 times
    Holding that the inclusion of anticipated but unaccrued fees that “have not been and may never be incurred” are not “in controversy” between the parties because they are too uncertain given that litigation can end through settlement at any time

  4. Vermande v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.

    352 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Conn. 2004)   Cited 50 times
    Denying motion for Rule 11 sanctions where party failed to comply with procedural requirements

  5. Doughty v. Hyster New England, Inc.

    344 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D. Me. 2004)   Cited 21 times
    Remanding case because defendant failed to "establish[] by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000"

  6. King v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (S.D.Ind. 1996)

    940 F. Supp. 213 (S.D. Ind. 1996)   Cited 26 times
    Holding defendant failed to support a reasonable probability that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied by relying on complaint's general allegations, plaintiff's report of special damages in excess of $10,000, plaintiff's settlement demand of $50,000, and plaintiff's claim for past and future lost wages

  7. Vradenburgh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    397 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D. Me. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Declining to treat stipulation after removal that damages are less than $75,000 as determinative, and assessing amount in controversy as of the date of removal

  8. Brown v. Leclair

    20 Mass. App. Ct. 976 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 26 times
    Upholding a damage award for breach of the warranty of habitability where the tenant introduced photographs of the premises and testified as to the personal property lost and personal injury suffered as a result of the violations

  9. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 100,959 times   140 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."

  10. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 34,312 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"

  11. Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations

    Fed. R. Evid. 408   Cited 4,434 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)