Rosenblatt v. Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
Richard Rosenblatt (“Rosenblatt”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction his claims against Ernst & Young International, Ltd. (“EYI”), Ernst & Young, LLP (“EY-LLP”), and EY-LLP partner, James Pope (“Pope”). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
I The District Court Properly Ignored EY-LLP and Pope In Determining the Existence of Diversity Jurisdiction Because They Were “Sham Defendants”…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Carden v. Arkoma AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN DRUG COMPANY; William Dement, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kate Koeller, et al. v. Nixplay, Inc., et al.District Court, N.D. California · 2026