Towers v. Long Island Properties, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “it was not unreasonable for [the defendant] to assume that the vast majority (if not all
• noting that the district court “had some notion that removal under CAFA should be met with a level of skepticism and resistance. That was incorrect.”
• stating that reducing the 4 value may be more appropriate than striking out a claim in its entirety
• holding “it 22 was not unreasonable for [defendant] to assume that the vast majority (if not all
• noting that “the district 28 court should consider the claim under the better assumption — not just zero-out the 1 claim.”
• noting that “the district court [incorrectly] imposed . . . a presumption against CAFA’s jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).