Legal Opinion
Ryan v. Cerullo
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided November 3, 2004No. 3:04CV1328(MRK)PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING AND ORDER
KRAVITZ, District Judge.
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas Ryan’s Motion to Remand [doc. # 11] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 Plaintiff claims that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs claim. For the reasons stated below this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand.
Because Defendants removed this action from state court, they bear the burden of proving that Plaintiffs claim exceeds the jurisdictional amount in controversy.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Michael A. Lupo v. Human Affairs International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Roy A. Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc. And Louis G. BondCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Meritcare Incorporated Meritcare Ventures, Inc. Quinlan Medical, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Cole v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Price v. Petsmart, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
- Luce v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2014
- McLoughlin v. People's United Bank, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2008
- Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2015
- DiCandido v. MazzerDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.