State of Delaware v. Felix Hutchinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff need only make “a reasoned argument as to why any assumptions . . . are not supported by evidence”
• holding that courts should “not supply further assumptions of its own,” and 6 | should only weigh the reasonableness of the assumptions given by the removing party
• holding that “[defendant’s failure] to produce any proof that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’ Case No. 2:24-cv-06238-CAS (PDx
• indicating that when a calculation is 1 contested “[b]oth parties may submit evidence supporting the amount in controversy before the district 2 court rules”
• holding if a plaintiff makes a factual attack, then courts can consider summary-judgment-type evidence, such as affidavits or declarations, in addition to the allegations of the complaint and notice of removal
• concluding plaintiff mounted a factual attacked by “contest[ing] [the defendant’s] failure to demonstrate that all members of the Hourly Employee Class worked shifts long enough to qualify for meal and rest periods”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).