Legal Opinion
Rahwar v. Nootz
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided September 12, 1994No. Civ. A. 94-2674PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLIN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to remand this action to the state court following the removal of the action by defendants. This matter has been decided on the written submissions of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. In addition, the Court has reviewed the complete record of this action. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the application to remand this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
In the current ease, removal is based upon the allegation of diversity…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Gilardi v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1960
- Brooks v. Solomon Co.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1982
- Hessler v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1988
- Wright v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Surber v. Reliance National Indemnity Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2000
- Entrekin v. Fisher Scientific Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2001
- Golden Apple Management Co. v. GEAC Computers, Inc.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1998
- Costa v. Verizon New Jersey, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2013
- Vermande v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2004
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.