Filed March 27, 2019
By & Through Lungren v. Keating, the Ninth Circuit observed: As the Supreme Court has stated: “The obvious principle of [the decisions developing the voluntary/involuntary rule] is that, in the absence of a fraudulent purpose to defeat removal, the plaintiff may by the allegations of his complaint determine the status with respect to removability of a case . . . and that this power to determine the removability of his case continues with the plaintiff throughout the litigation, so that whether such a case nonremovable when commenced shall afterwards become removable depends not upon what the defendant may allege or prove or what the court may, after hearing upon the merits, in invitum, order, but solely upon the form which the plaintiff by his voluntary action shall give to the pleadings in the case as it progresses towards a conclusion.” 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993) (Quoting Great Northern Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)) (emphasis added). “Voluntary action exists where the plaintiff voluntarily amends his pleadings or where the plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismissal or nonsuit of the nondiverse defendants.”
Filed March 27, 2019
By & Through Lungren v. Keating, the Ninth Circuit observed: As the Supreme Court has stated: “The obvious principle of [the decisions developing the voluntary/involuntary rule] is that, in the absence of a fraudulent purpose to defeat removal, the plaintiff may by the allegations of his complaint determine the status with respect to removability of a case . . . and that this power to determine the removability of his case continues with the plaintiff throughout the litigation, so that whether such a case nonremovable when commenced shall afterwards become removable depends not upon what the defendant may allege or prove or what the court may, after hearing upon the merits, in invitum, order, but solely upon the form which the plaintiff by his voluntary action shall give to the pleadings in the case as it progresses towards a conclusion.” 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993) (Quoting Great Northern Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)) (emphasis added). “Voluntary action exists where the plaintiff voluntarily amends his pleadings or where the plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismissal or nonsuit of the nondiverse defendants.”
Filed March 27, 2019
By & Through Lungren v. Keating, the Ninth Circuit observed: As the Supreme Court has stated: “The obvious principle of [the decisions developing the voluntary/involuntary rule] is that, in the absence of a fraudulent purpose to defeat removal, the plaintiff may by the allegations of his complaint determine the status with respect to removability of a case . . . and that this power to determine the removability of his case continues with the plaintiff throughout the litigation, so that whether such a case nonremovable when commenced shall afterwards become removable depends not upon what the defendant may allege or prove or what the court may, after hearing upon the merits, in invitum, order, but solely upon the form which the plaintiff by his voluntary action shall give to the pleadings in the case as it progresses towards a conclusion.” 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993) (Quoting Great Northern Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)) (emphasis added). “Voluntary action exists where the plaintiff voluntarily amends his pleadings or where the plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismissal or nonsuit of the nondiverse defendants.”
Filed March 27, 2019
By & Through Lungren v. Keating, the Ninth Circuit observed: As the Supreme Court has stated: “The obvious principle of [the decisions developing the voluntary/involuntary rule] is that, in the absence of a fraudulent purpose to defeat removal, the plaintiff may by the allegations of his complaint determine the status with respect to removability of a case . . . and that this power to determine the removability of his case continues with the plaintiff throughout the litigation, so that whether such a case nonremovable when commenced shall afterwards become removable depends not upon what the defendant may allege or prove or what the court may, after hearing upon the merits, in invitum, order, but solely upon the form which the plaintiff by his voluntary action shall give to the pleadings in the case as it progresses towards a conclusion.” 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993) (Quoting Great Northern Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)) (emphasis added). “Voluntary action exists where the plaintiff voluntarily amends his pleadings or where the plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismissal or nonsuit of the nondiverse defendants.”
Filed March 27, 2019
By & Through Lungren v. Keating, the Ninth Circuit observed: As the Supreme Court has stated: “The obvious principle of [the decisions developing the voluntary/involuntary rule] is that, in the absence of a fraudulent purpose to defeat removal, the plaintiff may by the allegations of his complaint determine the status with respect to removability of a case . . . and that this power to determine the removability of his case continues with the plaintiff throughout the litigation, so that whether such a case nonremovable when commenced shall afterwards become removable depends not upon what the defendant may allege or prove or what the court may, after hearing upon the merits, in invitum, order, but solely upon the form which the plaintiff by his voluntary action shall give to the pleadings in the case as it progresses towards a conclusion.” 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993) (Quoting Great Northern Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)) (emphasis added). “Voluntary action exists where the plaintiff voluntarily amends his pleadings or where the plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismissal or nonsuit of the nondiverse defendants.”
Filed August 7, 2015
The Ninth Circuit cases cited by Plaintiff are consistent with this longstanding application of the exception. See People v. Keating, 986 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Great Northern Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)); Self v. Gen. Motors Corp., 588 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1978) (a directed verdict is a ruling on merits and therefore precludes removal). Case 2:15-cv-05392-JGB-SP Document 24 Filed 08/07/15 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:756 11 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND 1095919.
Filed May 22, 2017
Removability of a case is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint or the petition and if the case is not then removable, it cannot be made removable by any statement contained in the petition for removal or subsequent pleadings by the defendant. Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 281 (1918). The Supreme Court has further established “a case that is non-removable on the complaint cannot be converted into a removable one by evidence of the defendant or by any an order of the court, but that such conversion can only be accomplished by the plaintiff’s voluntary amendment of its pleadings.”
Filed April 12, 2012
Subsequent developments in a case are irrelevant. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537, 59 S.Ct. 347, 348, 83 L.Ed. 334 (1939); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 281, 38 S.Ct. 237, 239, 62 L.Ed. 713 (1918); Sunny Acres Skilled Nursing v. Williams, 731 F.Supp. 1323, 1325 (N.D.Ohio 1990); Hood v. Security Bank of Huntington, 562 F.Supp. 749, 750 (S.D.Ohio 1983); 1A J. Moore & B. Ringle, Moore's Federal Practice ¶¶ 0.157 “It has long been the case that “the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.”
Filed June 25, 2010
Id. (quoting Great Norther R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280). To that effect, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is to be “strictly construed” against removal.