Legal Opinion
Kamm v. ITEX CORP.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 15, 2009No. 07-35079PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Bruce Kamm and Invision Ltd. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued ITEX Corporation (“ITEX”) on a contract in Oregon state court. ITEX filed a notice to remove the suit to federal district court based on diversity of citizenship. Thirty-one days later, Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court based on a forum selection clause in the contract. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
ITEX appeals, contending that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Plaintiffs were required to file their remand motion within thirty days of the filing of ITEX’s notice of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- FindWhere Holdings, Inc. v. Systems Environment Optimization, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2010
- Atlantic National Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011
- Watson v. City of AllenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2016
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.