A plaintiff’s complaint needn’t plead that a corporate party’s “nerve center” is located in a particular place, the 9th Circuit has ruled in reversing a dismissal.Read More »
A product liability plaintiff couldn’t prevent removal to federal court by joining a local defendant in an effort to eliminate diversity jurisdiction, the 7th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.Read More »
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not preclude federal courts from exercising diversity jurisdiction in private lawsuits brought by recipients of unsolicited faxes, the 3rd Circuit has ruled.Read More »
An employer could not rely on extrinsic evidence to show that an employee’s overtime lawsuit did not fall within the “local controversy” exception to federal jurisdiction over class actions, the 9th Circuit has ruled in affirming a remand order.Read More »
A corporation is a citizen of the state where its “nerve center” is located for the purpose of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction. See “Justices adopt ‘nerve center’ test for diversity jurisdiction.” U.S. Supreme Court. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, No. 08-1107. ...
Tagged with: diversity jurisdictionRead More »
A consumer class action against a payday lender was properly remanded to state court because the defendant could not satisfy the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction, the 4th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.Read More »
The “fraudulent misjoinder” doctrine does not apply to permit a federal court to dismiss hormone therapy drug claims instead of remanding them to state court, the 8th Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.Read More »