16 Cited authorities

Martin v. Franklin Capital
546 U.S. 132 (2005) Cited 4,809 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”
Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets
313 U.S. 100 (1941) Cited 4,362 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that case was improperly removed: "Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined."
Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988) Cited 1,420 times
Holding that the removing party did not discharge its burden to prove complete diversity and improper joinder, that "the district court erred by failing to address the important jurisdictional issues before reaching the merits of the case," and that the district court's failure to assess its own jurisdiction necessitated remand
Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc.
538 U.S. 691 (2003) Cited 156 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a defendant removes a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the burden is on a plaintiff to find an express exception to removal
Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging Inc.
184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 492 times
Holding that the one-year rule only applies to cases that were not removable based on the initial pleading
Warthman v. Genoa Township Board of Trustees
549 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 174 times
Holding remand not reviewable where district court held that the complaint invoked only state-law claims and thus subject matter jurisdiction did not exist
Certain Interested Underwriters v. Layne
26 F.3d 39 (6th Cir. 1994) Cited 219 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in diversity cases, state substantive law determines whether a party is a "real party in interest" with standing to sue under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Tech Hills II Associates v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance
5 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 1993) Cited 131 times
Holding that remand is not required where there are technical defects in the notice of removal that a defendant can cure, even if the defect is cured outside of the 30-day period
Taylor Chevrolet v. Medical Mut. Services
306 F. App'x 207 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 4 times
No. 07-4505. December 22, 2008. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. BEFORE: ROGERS, SUTTON, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. OPINION McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Taylor Chevrolet, Inc. ("Taylor") sued Defendant Medical Mutual Services LLC ("Medical Mutual") in Ohio state court, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other state law claims. Medical Mutual removed the suit to federal district court, contending that Taylor's claims
Sherwood v. Microsoft Corp.
91 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (M.D. Tenn. 2000) Cited 11 times
Stating that "the jurisdictional amount is to be determined by the plaintiffs' assigned value of their claims or the value of the right sought to be enforced by the plaintiffs"
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 111,422 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 50,044 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.”
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,116 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"
Rule 4.04 - Service Upon Defendants within the State
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.04 Cited 348 times
The plaintiff shall furnish the person making the service with such copies of the summons and complaint as are necessary. Service shall be made as follows: (1) Upon an individual other than an unmarried infant or an incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally, or if he or she evades or attempts to evade service, by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion

Valdez v. Miller Energy Resources et al (TV1)

16 Cited authorities

Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”

Holding that case was improperly removed: "Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined."

Holding that when a defendant removes a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the burden is on a plaintiff to find an express exception to removal

Holding that the one-year rule only applies to cases that were not removable based on the initial pleading

Holding remand not reviewable where district court held that the complaint invoked only state-law claims and thus subject matter jurisdiction did not exist

Holding that, in diversity cases, state substantive law determines whether a party is a "real party in interest" with standing to sue under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Holding that remand is not required where there are technical defects in the notice of removal that a defendant can cure, even if the defect is cured outside of the 30-day period

Stating that "the jurisdictional amount is to be determined by the plaintiffs' assigned value of their claims or the value of the right sought to be enforced by the plaintiffs"

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.”

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"