Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, 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 “SLUSA does not require the dismissal of all non- precluded claims appearing in the same complaint as a precluded claim”
• holding that proof 5 of joinder is met if “one defendant avers that all defendants consent to removal”
• concluding that “the filing of a notice of removal can be effective without individual consent documents on behalf of each defendant”
• reasoning that the possibility of rule 11 sanctions for making false averments mitigate the concern that one defendant might falsely state the other defendants’ consent
• determining that one defendant’s timely notice of removal representing consent of the other defendants is sufficient
• noting that sanctions 1 and the ability to object to removal mitigate concerns that a defendant will make a false 2 averment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).