22 Cited authorities

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (1987) Cited 11,198 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P.
541 U.S. 567 (2004) Cited 2,119 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party's post-filing change in citizenship cannot cure a lack of diversity jurisdiction from the lawsuit's outset
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.
316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,867 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"
Freeport-McMoran Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc.
498 U.S. 426 (1991) Cited 789 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that addition of non-diverse party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c) did not deprive federal court of jurisdiction
Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty.
708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 568 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that leave to amend should be permitted absent "strong evidence" of delay, bad faith, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, prejudice, or futility
Hughes v. U.S.
953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 645 times
Holding that a Form 4340 certificate of assessment and payment is an official document that established an assessment, in the absence of contrary evidence
In re Pegasus Gold Corp.
394 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 391 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts have applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, to bankruptcy courts to allow them to resolve bankruptcy claims solely based on "related to" jurisdiction
Morongo Band of Ind. v. Cal. St. Bd., Equal
849 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 635 times
Holding that a court without jurisdiction is without power to do anything except to dismiss the case and that any other order issued by the court would be a nullity
Sec. Inv’r Prot.Corp. v. Vigman
764 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 242 times
Holding that, because the Exchange Act provides for nationwide service of process, "the question becomes whether the party has sufficient contacts with the United States, not any particular state"
Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
827 F.2d 1246 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 213 times
Holding that insufficient verification of a notice of removal was not fatal to jurisdiction because the technical error was later corrected by amended notice
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 344,855 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 111,020 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"
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,251 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson et al

22 Cited authorities

Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"

Holding that a party's post-filing change in citizenship cannot cure a lack of diversity jurisdiction from the lawsuit's outset

Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

Holding that addition of non-diverse party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c) did not deprive federal court of jurisdiction

Holding that leave to amend should be permitted absent "strong evidence" of delay, bad faith, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, prejudice, or futility

Holding that a Form 4340 certificate of assessment and payment is an official document that established an assessment, in the absence of contrary evidence

Holding that courts have applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, to bankruptcy courts to allow them to resolve bankruptcy claims solely based on "related to" jurisdiction

Holding that a court without jurisdiction is without power to do anything except to dismiss the case and that any other order issued by the court would be a nullity

Holding that, because the Exchange Act provides for nationwide service of process, "the question becomes whether the party has sufficient contacts with the United States, not any particular state"

Holding that insufficient verification of a notice of removal was not fatal to jurisdiction because the technical error was later corrected by amended notice

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint