Tag Archives: 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

Plaintiff Should Not Have Rested on Complaint Allegations to Establish Amount in Controversy in Diversity Case, Holds First Circuit

In Andersen v. Vagaro, Inc., No. 22-1471 (1st Cir. Jan. 3, 2022), The First Circuit affirms dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiff, though duly warned, failed to allege facts or present evidence to support that amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 was required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Andersen owned and operatedContinue reading “Plaintiff Should Not Have Rested on Complaint Allegations to Establish Amount in Controversy in Diversity Case, Holds First Circuit”

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Rejects Eleventh Circuit’s “Fraudulent Misjoinder” Doctrine to Rescue Removed Case and Remands to State Court

In Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co., No. 20-30196 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021), the panel split three ways in addressing whether there was full diversity in a removed action, with the majority holding that that no misjoinder doctrine could rescue the case from remand. The case had proceeded for over a decade in state andContinue reading “Split Fifth Circuit Panel Rejects Eleventh Circuit’s “Fraudulent Misjoinder” Doctrine to Rescue Removed Case and Remands to State Court”

Seventh Circuit Discusses “Nerve Center” Test for Diversity Jurisdiction as Applied to Corporate Subsidiaries

In Big Shoulders Capital LLC v. San Luis & Rio Grande Rd., No. 20-1503 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2021), the court remands a diversity action to determine whether the subsidiaries of a railroad – under the “nerve center” test – are citizens (1) of Illinois where the parent is headquartered, or (2) of Oregon, Delaware,Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Discusses “Nerve Center” Test for Diversity Jurisdiction as Applied to Corporate Subsidiaries”

Law Firm With “Stateless Partners” Not A Citizen for Purposes of Diversity, Holds Seventh Circuit

In Page v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 20-2781 (7th Cir. June 21, 2021), the Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of a defamation action against a law partnership with partners domiciled overseas, holding that it is not the citizen of any state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Carter Page, “a foreign policy advisor to former President Donald Trump’sContinue reading “Law Firm With “Stateless Partners” Not A Citizen for Purposes of Diversity, Holds Seventh Circuit”