Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., Auto-By-Tel Marketing Corporation, and North Brothers Ford, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that diversity jurisdiction “exists only when no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same state” (citation omitted)
• noting a defendant may avoid remand by demonstrating non-diverse parties are fraudulently joined.
• “[I]t is clear in the present case that a declaratory judgment would be redundant with the relief already sought for breach of contract.”
• “In order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship …”
• a plaintiff’s motive for joining a non-diverse defendant to the action is immaterial to the fraudulent joinder analysis
• “Diversity of citizenship, the basis for jurisdiction in the present case, exists only when no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).