Michael A. Lupo v. Human Affairs International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, where defendant “failed . . . [to] even raise the issue of diversity jurisdiction,” the court “lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction”
• finding that, where defendant “failed . . . [to] even raise the issue of diversity jurisdiction,” the court “lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction”
• remanding malpractice case because claims bore no resemblance to those described in section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA
• noting that “federal courts construe the removal statute narrowly”
• refusing “to permit [defendant] to amend its notice of removal” to allege diversity jurisdiction “beyond thirty days after [defendant] first received [plaintiff’s] complaint”
• refusing “to permit [defendant] to amend its notice of removal” to allege diversity jurisdiction “beyond thirty days after [defendant] first received [plaintiff’s] complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).