Roy A. Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc. And Louis G. Bond

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court has discretion to overlook procedural flaws in determining whether petition for removal was filed with the 30-day period required by section 1446(b)
• holding that a district court did not err by excusing noncompliance with certain local rules, in part because the rules were “technical” and “designed to regulate, for convenience sake, how papers look”
• holding that a district court did not err by excusing noncompliance with certain local rules, in part because the rules were “technical” and “designed to regulate, for convenience sake, how papers look”
• noting that Rule 5(e) does not tell us how to file, but its references to the clerk and the judge ‘indicate that the clerk, and ultimately the district court judge, are the arbiters of the filing process”
• describing a district court’s “inherent discretion to depart from the letter of the Local Rules” and reviewing the result
• \[I]t is the business of the district court to determine whether fairness demands that noncompliance be excused.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).