Legal Opinion
Shoemaker v. Sentry Life Insurance
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided April 19, 2007No. CV 07 00480 PHX NVWPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WAKE, District Judge.
Pending before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Remand (Doc. # 12). The court will grant the motion for reconsideration and will decide the Motion to Remand (Doc. # 10) on the original briefing.
On April 18, 2007, the court issued an order denying Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. # 7) on the ground that the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) had been satisfied. See Doc. # 11. Having reconsidered the original briefing on that issue, it is now apparent from the Complaint itself…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Galt G/S v. JSS ScandinaviaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company v. Glen A. HarmonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Burk v. Medical Savings InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2004
- Joseph H. Beaman v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1966
- Richard B. Keck v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chauvin v. Symetra Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2019
- Luba Casualty Insurance Co v. J P D Real Estate L L CDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 2020
- Shields v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2020