Hernandez v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• granting plaintiffs motion to remand because “[i]n light of this lack of clarity, it cannot be said that the manager’s privilege clearly bars Plaintiffs defamation... claims against Defendant”
• “[R]emand must be granted unless Ignite demonstrates that Plaintiff ‘would not be afforded leave to amend [her] complaint to cure [the] purported deficiency.’”
• “Since Ignite 7 has not met its heavy burden of demonstrating that Alton is a sham defendant, no complete 8 diversity exists between the parties to this litigation and this action must be remanded.” (emphasis 9 added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).