Roderick Clark v. Nichols M. N.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a facial attack tests the “legal adequacy” of the plaintiff’s 28 1 jurisdictional allegations
• holding a defendant removing under CAFA is not required to present evidence in response to a facial challenge to jurisdictional allegations
• noting that state courts “enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over [CAFA] actions”
• declining to address “whether allegations of a party’s residency 17 constitutes prima facie evidence of that party’s domicile”
• noting “when a defendant’s allegations of citizenship are unchallenged, 28 nothing more is required”
• allegation, based on information and belief, that a named party was a citizen of a diverse state sufficient to establish diversity and pleading stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).