green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
62.8 score
“hen an action is 18 removed on the basis of diversity, the requisite diversity must exist at the time the action 19 is removed to federal court.”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
The People Of The State Of California v. HomeAway.com, Inc.
the diversity upon which removal is predicated must be complete, and should 15 generally be determined from the face of the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cashman v. Pacific Indemnity Company
hen an action is 18 removed on the basis of diversity, the requisite diversity must exist at the time the action 19 is removed to federal court.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Masoumeh Kabiri Sharifi v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gabriel Ramirez-Landeros and Alma Rosa Ramirez v. Ecolab Inc., et al.
If the action is removed 23 based on diversity jurisdiction, then there must also be complete diversity at the time of 24 removal; otherwise, the federal district court must “remand the action to state court.” Miller v. 25 Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 1 Here, Belmudez’s consent to removal is not necessary because he has not been properly 2 served.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruiz v. Alley Bank
Co. of New York, 790 26 F.2d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985)). 27 “Federal courts look only to a plaintiff’s pleadings to determine removability.” Id. (citing Self v. 28 Gen.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Padilla v. Blue Cloud Investment Holdings LLC
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th 25 Cir. 1986) (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Treehouse California Almonds LLC v. Tram Bar Co-Packing LLC
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th 26 Cir. 1986) (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierson v. M.B. Sturgis, Inc.
The complete diversity requirement is met when “the citizenship of each plaintiff is 22 diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 23 “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.” Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985) 24 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People of The State of California v. The Kroger Co.
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adel Yamout v. Jeffry Scapa
See Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2016); Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985); 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Ibarra v. Toyota Logistics Services, Inc.
In ruling on a 2 motion to remand, jurisdiction is generally determined from the face of the complaint. 3 Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The People of the State of California v. Caydon San Diego Property LLC
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wisnovsky v. Couvrette
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
6344 Legend Falls Trust v. National Default Servicing Corporation
Remand 2:10–22, ECF No. 29). 4 i. Plaintiff’s Citizenship 5 It is well established that diversity is determined “at the time the action is removed to 6 federal court.” Miller v. Grgurish, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Strotek Corp. v. 7 Air Transp.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Vanderbilt
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
A domicile 5 is a “permanent home,” where someone “resides with the intention to remain or to which 6 [he] intends to return.” Id. 7 Diversity should “generally be determined from the face of the complaint.” Miller 8 v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 372 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Caldera-Bredeson v. United States Postal Service (USPS)
Wei, 763 F.2d at 372 (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. United States Small Business Administration
See Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1987); Wei, 763 F.2d at 372. 9 Because Plaintiff failed to properly serve the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California and the United 10 States Attorney General within the 120–day period or to provide good cause for her failure, the court must dismiss Plaintiff's action. 11 12 Cranford, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 985 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mauricio v. Suncrest Health Services, LLC
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). 16 A plaintiff may challenge removal by filing a motion to remand the case to state court. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1447 (c).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BETTY J. SCOTT TORRES v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). 14 The removing party need only include a “short and plain statement” setting forth “a 15 plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 16 threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 , 83, 89 17 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Armand Hammer Foundation, Inc. v. Rex K. Alexander
Diversity Jurisdiction 15 “When an action is removed on the basis of diversity, the requisite diversity 16 must exist at the time the action was removed to federal court.” Miller v. Grgurich, 17 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allan Family Trust v. U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
See Townsel, 23 820 F.2d at 320 (finding that attorney’s ignorance of Rule 4 was not excusable neglect); 24 Wei, 763 F.2d at 372 (finding that attorney’s inadvertent failure to meet deadline did not 25 constitute good cause).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Huerta v. Covina Care Center, Inc.
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James v. Sacramento County
Wei, 763 F.2d at 372 (no good cause to extend time to serve 18 opposing party where counsel’s inadvertence was the primary reason offered for the delay). 19 Plaintiff has failed to purport any reason beyond oversight or ignorance.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The People Of The State Of California v. Monsanto, Co.
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hanks v. Maricopa County Recorder's Office
Miller 25 v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nieratko v. Ford Motor Company
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 1986) 24 (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1955)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blanda v. Cisar
Thus, neither case supports that this approach should apply in removal 20 cases. 21 The proper test to determine diversity is to look at the parties’ citizenship at the 22 time of removal. “[W]hen an action is removed on the basis of diversity, the requisite 23 diversity must exist at the time the action is removed to federal court.” Miller v. 24 Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver Peaks LLC v. CareMore Health Plan
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver Peaks, LLC v. CareMore Health Plan
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver Peaks, LLC v. CareMore Health Plan
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Washington v. National Maintenance Contractors LLC
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 13 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver Peaks, LLC v. CareMore Health Plan
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gomez v. Bradford
Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121 , 1125–26 (9th Cir. 19 1 In support of this assertion, Defendants cite to Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th 20 Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chris Langer v. Ai Sunset, LLC
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). 22 The court may remand the action sua sponte “[i]f at any time before final judgment it 23 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c); 24 United Invs.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Silver Peaks, LLC v. CareMore Health Plan
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ayala v. Ford Motor Company
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 1986) 18 (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1955)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Serop J. Beylerian v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.
Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal 24 question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . 25 Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among the adverse 26 27 2 Although Plaintiffs have filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (ECF No. 22), the Court looks 28 to the face of the complaint at the time of removal to determine whether diversity jurisdiction is satisfied, Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). 1 parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Santa Clara v. Wang
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). 24 Defendants claim to be citizens of, and to be domiciled in, the People’s Republic of China. 25 Defendants further assert that the only members of the LLC defendants are citizens of the People’s 26 Republic of China.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boruta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th 17 Cir. 1998); Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coffin v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC.
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 22 1986) (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Campbell v. Hartford Life Insurance
In addition, “[w]hen an action is removed on the basis of diversity, the requisite diversi ty must exist at the time the action is removed to federal court.” Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lujan v. Girardi/Keese
If the court is satisfied that it may 15 exercise jurisdiction over the Guam Action, it can then determine whether it will “sever and 16 dismiss” the defamation claim as requested by the Girardi Defendants. 17 A. Motion to Remand 18 “When an action is removed based on diversity, complete diversity must exist at 19 removal.” Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d at 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant
Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 672-78 (1st Cir.1995) (same); Yniques v. Cabral, 985 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir.1993) (plaintiff's amending complaint to join non-diverse defendant; holding based on 1447(e), which applies only to efforts by plaintiffs to join non-diverse defendants); Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985) (paraphrasing Desert Empire Bank v. Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schnabel v. Lui
In this context, we will remand to the district court for a determination of diversity only “if, on the face of the pleadings at the time of removal there exists a ‘substantial question concerning the plaintiffs citizenship.’ ” Albrecht, 845 F.2d at 194 (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peter R.. Schnabel v. Froyer Holdings Development & Trading Co.
In this context, we will remand to the district court for a determination of diversity only "if, on the face of the pleadings at the time of removal there exists a `substantial question concerning the plaintiff's citizenship.'" Albrecht, 845 F.2d at 194 (citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985)). 33 In this case, Defendants filed their complaint in state court identifying Lui as a resident of Australia, and Froyer USA and FSN Top Secret as California corporations.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Albin v. Qwest Communications Corp.
Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Potter v. Shoney's, Inc.
Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure before Trial, Chap. 2D at 19 (1994); Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985) (“The diversity upon which removal is predicated ... should generally *497 be determined from the face of the complaint.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schwartz v. FHP International Corp.
Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Company, 257 U.S. 92 , 42 S.Ct. 35 , 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921); Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petrop v. Lassen Art Publications, Inc.
Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Self v. General Motors Corp., 588 F.2d 655, 657 (9th Cir. 1978) and Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985)); see also Westinghouse Elec.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. Eastern Middlesex Ass'n of Realtors, Inc.
Bally, 707 F.Supp. at 58 , quoting Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction on party seeking removal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William F. GRGURICH and Southern Aviation Insurance Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
v.
William F. GRGURICH and Southern Aviation Insurance Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
84-6188.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 13, 1985.
Francis C. Pizzulli, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant., Arthur Wasserman, Encino, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Kennedy, Hug, Ferguson.
Cited by 88 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2) · N.D. California (1) · S.D. California (1) · W.D. Tennessee (1) · Virgin Islands (1)
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.