DANIEL MILLER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM F. GRGURICH AND SOUTHERN AVIATION INSURANCE GROUP, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Diversity jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal, and the burden is on the removing party to establish it.
The court reviewed a case removed based on diversity jurisdiction. There was a question regarding the plaintiffs citizenship at the time of removal.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Removal to Federal Court cases and more on FLexlaw
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:
When an action is removed on the basis of diversity, the requisite diversity must exist at the time the action is removed to federal court. C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 38, at 153 (3d ed. 1976); 14A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3723, at 311 (2d ed. 1985); see Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Company of North America, 623 F. 2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir.1980) (the addition of a nondiverse party defendant after removal defeats federal jurisdiction and requires remand). The rule requiring diversity at the time removal is sought parallels the rule in federal question cases where a federal question must exist at the time the petition for removal is filed. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F. 2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.1979).
The diversity upon which removal is predicated must be complete, see Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch.) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), and should generally be determined from the face of the complaint. Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass’n, 731 F. 2d 1423, 1426 (9th Cir.1984); see also Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party seeking removal. Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97, 42 S.Ct. 35, 37, 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921); Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corp. v. Majestic Housing, 743 F. 2d 1341, 1343 (9th Cir.1984).
On the face of the pleadings in this case, there is a substantial question concerning the plaintiffs citizenship at the time of removal. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court. The district court should determine whether diversity has been established under the principles we have set forth. If the requisite diversity is lacking, the district court should remand the action to state court. If diversity is established, the district court may reinstate its judgment. If a new notice of appeal is filed, the briefs and record in this case shall be transferred to the new appeal.
REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 790 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1988)
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., 992 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1993)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908)
- Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (U.S. 1806)
- Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1921)
- Salveson v. W. States Bankcard Ass'n, 731 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1979)
- Carpenters S. Cal. Admin. Corp. v. Majestic Hous., 743 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1980)