Geismann v. AESTHETICARE, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “the fundamental differences between Sections 1332(a) and 1332(d) suggest that when the original notice of removal alleged jurisdiction only under Section 1332(a), asserting jurisdiction under Section 1332(a) in the amended [NOR] constitutes a new ground for removal”
• “Aestheticare must set forth in the notice of removal the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.”
• “Although Section 1653 allows defendant to cure technical defects in a notice of removal, it does not allow for the addition of a new ground for removal.”
• “Although Section 1653 allows defendant to cure technical defects in a notice of removal, it does not allow for the addition of a new ground for removal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).