In Re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation (1994)

Recreational Indus. v. First Nat’l Bank of Boston, 639 F.2d 828 , 833 n.10 (1st Cir. 1981); but see In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 66-69 (3rd.

Recreational Indus. v. First Nat’l Bank of Boston, 639 F.2d 828 , 833 n. 10 (1st Cir.1981); but see In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 66-69 (3rd Cir.1994); Blaney v. Florida Nat’l Bank at Orlando, 357 F.2d 27, 30-31 (5th Cir.1966).

No. 45, 499 U.S. 976 (1991), and each member of the class mu the statutorily required minimum amount in controversy, In re Corestates Trust Fee 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir. 1994).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that, for injunctive actions, “the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected”).

Fee Litig.), 39 F.3d 61, 63 (3d Cir. 1994) (“The existence vel non of subject matter jurisdiction is a legal issue over which we exercise plenary review.”). 14 See Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[B]ecause we have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, the jurisdictional question and the merits collapse into one.” (internal citation omitted)). 5 III Having determined that we have jurisdiction, we would turn in the normal course to our standard of re…

Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, “the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief.” In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir.1994).

In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1994).

In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1994).

Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 , 89 S.Ct. 1053 , 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (1969); Zahn v. Int’l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 301 , 94 S.Ct. 505, 511 , 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994).

Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 301 , 94 S.Ct. 505, 512 , 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973); Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 338 , 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1057 , 22 L.Ed.2d 319 , reh’g denied, 394 U.S. 1025 , 89 S.Ct. 1622 , 23 L.Ed.2d 50 (1969); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1994) (“no private right of action should be implied under [12 U.S.C] § 92a”).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d.

The Third Circuit takes the position that “[t]he mere request for removal of a trustee does not place the entire trust corpus into controversy[.]” In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 66 (3d Cir. 1994).

Indeed, in all actions “seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, it is well- established that the amount in controversy is measured by the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977); see also In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1994) (“In injunction actions, it is settled that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by equitable relief.”) Here, it is…

When a party seeks injunctive relief, “the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief.” In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994) (“In injunctive actions, it is settled that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief.”).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994) (“In injunctive actions, it is settled that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief.”)..

In In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1994), the court concluded that Congress did not intend to create a private cause of action when it enacted § 92a of the Federal Reserve Act.

Defendant contends the Magistrate Judge should have followed In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 65-66 (3 Cir.1994) as: (1) it sets forth the proper standard for determining whether the corpus of a trust should be considered when determining jurisdictional amount; (2) it is a Circuit-level opinion, and as such, should be afforded greater weight than the district court case, Cheek v. Horton, 2008 WL 3500369 (E.D.

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Wright et al., Fed.

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 66 (3d Cir. 1994); Healthcare Servs.

(Doc. 1, p. 4.) See In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 1994).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 66 (3d Cir. 1994)(“The mere request for removal of a trustee does not place the entire trust corpus into controversy.”).

Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 66 (3rd Cir. 1994) (“The mere request for removal of a trustee does not place the entire trust corpus into controversy…”).

Comm'n , 432 U.S. 333 , 347, 97 S.Ct. 2434 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977) ("In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief,...the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation."); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig. , 39 F.3d 61 , 65 (3d Cir. 1994) ("the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief").

Co., 466 F.3d 893, 898 (10th Cir.2006) ("[A] court may look to the compliance costs of a defendant in multiple plaintiff cases to determine the amount in controversy.”); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir.1994) (finding that courts should determine the amount in controversy in claims for injunctive relief by calculating "the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief”).

Claims for punitive damages may be aggregated with claims for compensatory damages unless the punitive damages are “patently frivolous and without foundation,” such as if “they are unavailable as a matter of state substantive law.” In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994); Packard, 994 F.2d at 1046 (3d Cir.1993).

In injunctive actions, the amount in controversy is measured by “the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief.” In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir.1994).

Furthermore, “[i]n injunctive actions, it is settled that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right sought to be protected by the equitable relief.” In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir.1994).

In Re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3rd Cir.1994).

System, 117 F.3d 242 , 253 n. 20 (5th Cir.1997) (applying Angelastro methodology to Department of Education rule promulgated under Title IX); Corestates Trust Fee Litig. v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 39 F.3d 61, 68 (3d Cir.1994) (applying Angelas-tro analysis to regulations promulgated under National Bank Act).

Sys., 117 F.3d 242 , 253 n.20 (5th Cir. 1997); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1994); Smith v. Dearborn Fin.

In other words, “it is the value to the plaintiff to conduct his business or personal affairs free from the activity sought to be enjoined that is the yardstick for measuring the amount in controversy.” Id. at 65 (internal citations omitted) (quoting 14A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

Spellman, — F.3d —, 1995 WL 764548 , at *8; In Re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994).

See Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 301-02 , 94 S.Ct. 505, 511-12 , 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994); Packard, 994 F.2d at 1045.

Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 338 , 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1057-58 , 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (1969); In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994).

See In re 5 The notable exception occurs Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61 , 64 where recovery on one of the plaintiff’s (3d Cir. 1994); Packard v. Provident Nat. claims excludes recovery for one or more Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 , 1046 (3d Cir. of the others.

See In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1994); Packard v. Provident Nat.

A court must determine “(1) ‘whether the agency rule is properly within the scope of the enabling statute’; (2) ‘whether the statute under which the rule was promulgated properly permits the implication of a private right of action’; and (3) ‘whether implying a private right of action will further the purpose of the enabling statute.’ ” Polaroid Corp. v. Disney, 862 F.2d 987, 994 (3d Cir.1988) (quoting Angelastro, 764 F.2d at 947 ); see also Corestates Trust Fee Litig. v. Co…

A court must determine "(1) `whether the agency rule is properly within the scope of the enabling statute'; (2) `whether the statute under which the rule was promulgated properly permits the implication of a private right of action'; and (3) `whether implying a private right of action will further the purpose of the enabling statute.'" Polaroid Corp. v. Disney, 862 F.2d 987, 994 (3d Cir.1988) (quoting Angelastro, 764 F.2d at 947 ); see also Corestates Trust Fee Litig. v. Cor…

See In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1994); Unger v. Nat'l Residents Matching Program, 928 F.2d 1392 , 1394 (3d Cir.1991).

See In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1994); Unger v. Nat’l Residents Matching Program, 928 F.2d 1392 , 1394 (3d Cir.1991).

We note that a case from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit predicted that our Supreme Court would not permit their recovery.12 See Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 (3rd Cir. 1993) (court of appeals predicted Pennsylvania would not authorize the award of punitive damages in orphans’ court matters); Accord In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61 (3rd Cir. 1994) (same).

See Tolan v. United States, 176 F.R.D. 507, 509 (E.D.Pa.1998) (“[T]he court should consider the 12(b)(1) challenge first because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all other defenses and objections become moot.”) (citing In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 837 F.Supp. 104, 105 (E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir.1994)).

Although it may seem appropriate to characterize the role of the board of labor relations as primary in view of our determination that an employee first must present his or her claim to the board, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction traditionally has been held to apply when "a claim is originally cognizable in the courts . . . and . . . enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed with the special competence o…

Co., 556 F.3d 41, 51 (1st Cir.2009), citing Strawn v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293, 299 (4th Cir.2008) (where plaintiffs “offered nothing” to challenge defendant’s affidavit, defendant had established the amount in controversy under CAFA.) “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 34…

See In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61 , 65 (3d Cir.1994); Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

See In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 837 F.Supp. 104 (E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd, 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir.1994).

See id. (citations omitted).