How cited: Cluster 541811 · Go Syfert

Cluster 541811 (1990)

green · 412 citation events across 25 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199020082026
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 5 citations in this opinion
Id. at 711-12.
green Crotty v. Cook (1997)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 5 citations in this opinion
Id. at 711-12.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · signal: cf. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cf. Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 714 (“former employees whose vested benefits under a plan have already been distributed in a lump sum at the time they file suit are not ‘participants’ within the meaning of [29 U.S.C.] § 1002(7)”); Kuntz, 785 F.2d at 1411 (claimants who have received full extent of vested benefits under ERISA plan prior to filing suit lack standing as “participants”); Raymond v. Mobil Oil Corp., 983 F.2d 1528, 1536 (10th Cir.1993) (same).
green Crawford v. Lamantia (1994)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
The court noted that Nishimoto's “receipt of all the benefits she was due under the plan indicates ... that the ERISA claim might have become subject to dismissal at that point.” Id. at 715.
green Crawford v. Lamantia (1994)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
The court noted that Nishimoto's "receipt of all the benefits she was due under the plan indicates . . . that the ERISA claim might have become subject to dismissal at that point." Id. at 715.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Olson v. General Dynamics Corp., 960 F.2d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that participant status determined at the time of filing the suit), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2968 , 119 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 714 (9th Cir.1990).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Olson v. General Dynamics Corp., 960 F.2d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that participant status determined at the time of filing the suit), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2968 , 119 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 714 (9th Cir.1990).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir.1990); Fuller v. M.G.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See id. at 1984 ; Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712. 23 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712. 14 St.
Rule Authority · C.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
In the Opposition, Defendants advance the conclusory position that the state law claims “are so related to the preempted claims that they emanate from, and form part of, the same ‘case or controversy,’ such that they should all be tried in one action.” Dkt. 11 at 27–28 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a); Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 714).
Quote Authority · S.D. Cal.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 15 178, 182–83 (1936)); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 16 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking 17 removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.”). 18 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 19 the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking 17 removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.”
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Shizuko Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 5 1990).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 , 108 S.Ct. 614 ; Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir.1990.) This longstanding rule is based on the policy that judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity will sometimes best be served by the retention of jurisdiction by the federal court, particularly in instances where the trial date is imminent or where the federal court has performed a substantial amount of legal analysis that would need to be r…
Rule Authority
Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir.1990).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Co., 26 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.1994); see also, Olson v. General Dynamics Corp., 960 F.2d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2968 , 119 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992) (“At the time he filed his suit, Olson was receiving benefits [and] was therefore a ‘participant’ ”) [emphasis added]; Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 714 (9th Cir.1990) (“former employees whose vested benefits under a plan have already been distributed in a lump sum at …
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 5 citations in this opinion
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 714 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See id. at 715. 5 Here, Cross's state FEHA and ADEA claims arose from a common nucleus of operative facts: Cross's termination.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712. 8 Finley's challenge to the district court's treatment of his post-judgment motions also is without merit.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: accord
Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699 (1972)); accord Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712-13.
Cited · 5th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 (9th Cir.1990) (issues of removal reviewable de novo ); Farmers-Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. CIT Group/Equip.
Cited · 5th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 (9th Cir.1990) (issues of removal reviewable de novo); Farmers-Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. CIT Group/Equip.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709 (9th Cir.1990) (plaintiff's claim that she was terminated by employer to prevent her from acquiring a vested interest in a retirement plan was preempted by ERISA) and Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794 (9th Cir.1987) (wrongful termination claim based on theory that employer wanted to avoid paying retirement benefits was preempted by ERISA). 19 Any remaining doubts regarding ERISA preemption of wrongful terminati…
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709 (9th Cir.1990) (plaintiff’s claim that she was terminated by employer to prevent her from acquiring a vested interest in a retirement plan was preempted by ERISA) and Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794 (9th Cir.1987) (wrongful termination claim based on theory that employer wanted to avoid paying retirement benefits was preempted by ERISA).
Cited · D. Haw. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990)).
Cited · E.D. Cal. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 714 .
green Keshava LLC v. Goyens (2025)
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)–(c). 19 The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 20 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990).
Cited · S.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2 1990). 3 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant cannot meet its burden in this case.
green Watters v. Cannon (2023)
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See 19 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990).
green Morales v. Piche (2022)
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See 20 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990).
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: accord
Carnegie–Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 25 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1988) (district court should “consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage 26 of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity . . . ” in exercising discretionary pendent jurisdiction); accord Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 27 903 F.2d 709 , 715 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) (“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district…
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)–(c). 22 The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990).
Cited · D. Or. · signal: see
See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (quoting Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712 n.3).
Cited · C.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 715 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 , 349- 50 (1988)). 1 Tf either party believes this order is dispositive, they must object within 14 days.
citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 , 349- 50 (1988)
green Nelson v. Krebbs, Sr. (2019)
Cited · S.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Gaus 17 ||v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The ‘strong presumption’ against 18 |/removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 19 ||removal is proper.’’) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 20 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)). 21 For these reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the 22 ||State of California, County of San Diego.
Cited · D. Haw. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · D. Haw. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.1988).
Cited · C.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712 n. 3. 2 .
Cited · W.D. Wash. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709 , 715 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · S.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990).
Cited · D. Ariz. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 715 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, 780 F.2d 766 , 771 (9th Cir.1986)).
Cited · D. Nev. · signal: see
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992); see Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 712 n. 3 (removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction).
green Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE (1990)
Cited · D. Or. · signal: see
See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709 , 715 (9th Cir.1990) (pendent jurisdiction properly exercised where state and federal claims both arose out of defendant’s decision to terminate employment).