Douglas Leite v. Crane Company

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a “plaintiff bears the burden of proving” the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction and “must allege facts, not mere legal conclusions” to support the court’s jurisdiction
• concluding that “applying the Rule 12(b)(1) 6 framework to resolve jurisdictional challenges in this context will not unduly burden the unique 7 rights § 1442 affords removing defendants”
• holding that a defendant satisfies the third factor because it “makes a colorable showing that the Navy at all times knew at least as much about asbestos hazards as the equipment manufacturers”
• holding that facial 20 attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction are resolved by looking at the allegations in the complaint 21 and determining whether they “are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s jurisdiction”
• holding that “if the existence of jurisdiction turns on disputed factual 13 issues, the district court may resolve those factual disputes itself,” unless the factual disputes are 14 intertwined with the merits of the plaintiff’s claims
• stating that a 7 court “resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).