Uppal v. Electronic Data Systems

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant waived its right to assert diversity jurisdiction as basis for removal where it did not assert diversity jurisdiction until responding to the plaintiff’s motion to remand, when it realized that federal question jurisdiction was lacking
• refusing to allow a defendant to “assert a new ground for jurisdiction in opposition to a motion to remand” when that jurisdictional basis did not appear in the notice of removal
• collecting cases holding that, after the thirty-day period, a defendant may seek to amend the notice of removal “only . . . to clarify the jurisdictional grounds for removal, which were unartfully stated in the original notice.”
• defendant’s failure to act within the 30-day removal period “constitute[d] a waiver of its right to invoke diversity jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).