Jose Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is sufficient to “contest[ an] assumption” without “assert[ing] an alternative [assumption] grounded in real evidence”
• holding that removal jurisdiction cannot be supported “by mere speculation 26 and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions”
• holding that an alleged “pattern and 21 practice” of violations “does not necessarily mean always doing something,” and applying a 20% 22 rate
• holding that in determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the complaint
• holding that in determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the complaint
• holding that in determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).