Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. Geico
District Court, M.D. Alabama
Decided June 23, 2000No. CIV.A. 00-D-381-NPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DE MENT, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion To Remand (Doc. No. 5), filed April 24, 2000. Defendants oppose the Motion. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion To Remand is due to be granted. 1
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A defendant, as the party removing an action to federal court, has the burden to establish federal jurisdiction. See Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir.1996). Removal of a case from state to federal court is proper if the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Snyder v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Jacqueline Burns v. Windsor Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
- Zahn v. International Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Cheryl Cohen, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Office Depot, Inc., a Florida CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Susan Kanter Sharon Plunk v. Warner-Lambert Co. And Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Lutz v. Protective Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2004
- Key v. VallelyDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 2024
- Torreyes v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2019