Leslie Miedema v. Maytag Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the Act is silent as to which party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, the “well-established rule” that defendants bear the burden applies
• holding that 3 We review issues pertaining to removal de novo. Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994
• applying the “venerable” principle that “statutory language should not be applied literally if doing so would produce an absurd result” (quotation marks omitted)
• requiring proof of basic CAFA requirements by a preponderance of the evidence
• “[T]he text of CAFA plainly expands federal jurisdiction over class actions and facilitates their removal[.]”
• abrogated on other grounds by Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).