United States v. Galeana-Rodriguez

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy requirement must be met for each plaintiff (citing Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.6 (11th Cir. 2001))
• noting plaintiffs have the burden of establishing: (1) each party’s citizenship; and (2) that every plaintiff is diverse from every defendant
• rejecting argument that sua sponte dismissal was unfair surprise under Rule 60(b)(1) and stating that the court would not “characterize the district court’s correct application of settled law as an unfair surprise”
• “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have the duty to inquire into whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction.”
• “The plaintiff[ ], as the party asserting diversity jurisdiction, [has] the burden to ‘affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.’” (quoting Taylor v. Appelton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994))
• “The plaintiff[ ], as the party asserting diversity jurisdiction, [has] the burden to ‘affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.’” (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).