Legal Opinion

Rosenblatt v. Ernst & Young International, Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 29, 2002No. 00-56099; D.C. No. CV-99-01163-RMB (JFS)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Carden v. Arkoma AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN DRUG COMPANY; William Dement, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  3. Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  4. Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. 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

  1. Kate Koeller, et al. v. Nixplay, Inc., et al.District Court, N.D. California · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API