Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant was “objectively unreasonable” in arguing for removal based on federal claims in its third-party complaint
• holding that a defendant was “objectively unreasonable” in arguing for removal based on federal claims in its third-party complaint
• holding that the district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees and costs under § 1447(c) when defendant improperly sought removal for the entire case on the basis of its third-party complaint
• concluding that this Court could not review a district court’s remand of the case to state court, but that we had appellate jurisdiction to review the award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).