In Re Ford Motor Company Citibank South Dakota)

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendants could not aggregate disgorgement because plaintiffs’ 17 claims arose from individual purchases
• finding aggregation improper based on absence of “common and 26 undivided interest . . . [where] each plaintiff charged purchases and accrued rebates 27 individually, not as a group”
• focusing on the individual nature of the claim, and rejecting the either viewpoint rule
• “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”
• “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”
• “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).