Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a plaintiff is “required to specify affirmatively the citizenship of all relevant parties” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction
• arguing that clear meaning of section 1964(c)’s \by reason of\ language is that plaintiffs must allege injury from violation of section 1962(a), which prohibits use or investment, and not just from element of violation
• noting that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively specify the citizenship of all relevant parties, which in the case of a limited partnership includes all its partners
• noting that the party asserting diversity jurisdiction must “specify affirmatively the 8 || citizenship of all relevant parties . .. which in the case of a limited partnership . . . are the 9 || partners’
• upholding denial of motion to compel because moving party did not show the request fell 20 within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)
• upholding denial of motion to compel because moving 23 party did not show the request fell within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).