Legal Opinion
Jose Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 8, 2015No. 14-56779PublishedCited by 932 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GOULD, Circuit Judge:
We must decide what proof a defendant seeking removal must produce to prove the amount-in-controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), when the complaint does not include a facially apparent amount in controversy or the plaintiff may have understated the true amount in controversy.
CAFA gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the class members number at least 100, at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and the aggregate amount in controversy…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Antonio Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co Shell Oil Company, D/B/A Shell Chemical Company, and Shell Agricultural Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Andrew Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
- David Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by932 opinions
- Grant Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of AzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by MarriottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Levone Harris v. Km Industrial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation ServCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- Academy of Country Music v. Continental Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
927 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.