Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander

9 Citing briefs

  1. In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

    Brief re MOTION to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �1447

    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.”

  2. In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

    Brief re MOTION to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �1447

    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.”

  3. In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

    Brief re MOTION to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �1447

    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.”

  4. In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

    Brief re MOTION to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �1447

    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.”

  5. In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

    Brief re MOTION to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �1447

    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.”

  6. Regina West v. Johnson and Johnson et al

    OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court 14

    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.

  7. Gcc Mccarthy Joint Venture IV et al v. Ace American Insurance Company et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    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.”

  8. Welk et al v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM

    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.”

  9. Monroe v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER

    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.