§Why CasetextPricing

shierkatz RLLP v. Square, Inc.

RESPONSE to re Order to Show Cause; -RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

11 Cited authorities

  1. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc.

    316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 968 times
    Holding that "a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action"

  2. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.4th 1036 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 260 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no constitutional impediment in permitting non-Californians a right of action under a domestic statute because California had a "clear and substantial interest in preventing fraudulent practices in this state," or in "extending state-created remedies to out-of-state parties harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California."

  3. Martin v. International Olympic Committee

    740 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 372 times
    Accepting district court's balancing between potential Olympic athletes' harm in missing once-in-a-lifetime Olympic opportunity and the incremental burden on the Olympics organization committee if it had to organize two additional track and field events for women where the district court found the athletes' harm outweighed the harm to the Olympic committee, but denied a preliminary injunction based on the failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits

  4. Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

    68 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that the alleged facts showed "a sufficient nexus between California and the misrepresentations which form the basis of Plaintiff's claims" because the misrepresentations at issue "emanated from California"

  5. Burks v. Poppy Const. Co.

    57 Cal.2d 463 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 144 times
    Holding explicitly that the Unruh Act applies to purchases of real property

  6. Berman v. Doe

    599 F. App'x 316 (9th Cir. 2015)

    No. 13-35739 03-20-2015 JOHN BERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN DOE; et al., Defendants - Appellees. NOT FOR PUBLICATION D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00958-PA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. John Berman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment

  7. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,831 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 115,787 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"

  9. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 37,377 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  10. Section 51 - [Effective 1/1/2025] Unruh Civil Rights Act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 51   Cited 5,212 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating ADA violations

  11. Section 1653 - Amendment of pleadings to show jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1653   Cited 2,510 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Allowing amendment of complaints to cure defective jurisdictional pleadings