§Why CasetextPricing

Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 12 FIRST MOTION to Remand . / Respondents' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan's Motion to Remand. Document

65 Cited authorities

  1. Martin v. Franklin Capital

    546 U.S. 132 (2005)   Cited 4,813 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”

  2. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust

    463 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 10,447 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"

  3. Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing

    526 U.S. 344 (1999)   Cited 2,607 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"

  4. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 3,130 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

  5. Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

    395 U.S. 100 (1969)   Cited 2,449 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant

  6. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.

    570 U.S. 136 (2013)   Cited 308 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

  7. Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc.

    261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 912 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "summons with notice may serve as an initial pleading under section 1446(b)."

  8. Continental Co. v. Union Carbide

    370 U.S. 690 (1962)   Cited 807 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Court of Appeals erred by addressing plaintiff's allegations as separate claims, because in an antitrust case "plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each."

  9. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins

    305 U.S. 534 (1939)   Cited 1,088 times
    Holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”

  10. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Co.

    282 U.S. 555 (1931)   Cited 1,104 times
    Holding that although damages must be "the certain result of the wrong," they may be "uncertain in respect of their amount."

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,518 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"

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,534 times   135 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."

  13. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 50,084 times   149 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.”

  14. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 33,135 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"

  15. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,796 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  16. Section 15 - Suits by persons injured

    15 U.S.C. § 15   Cited 5,677 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."

  17. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,399 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

  18. Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 4,386 times   30 Legal Analyses
    In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

  19. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,912 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"