Zuckman v. Monster Beverage Corporation

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’s fee estimate was sufficiently concrete because the plaintiffs, by order of the court, had submitted an affidavit attesting to their hourly billable rates and predicting the number of hours they would likely spend on the litigation
• finding that a complaint was ambiguous because the plaintiff did not “expressly indicate[]” the full extent of his damages
• noting that “general assertions that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed $75,000 are too speculative to establish diversity jurisdiction”
• finding that attorney's fees are properly considered as a part of the amount in controversy in a CPPA case because the statute provides for the recovery of attorney's fees
• making an amount-in-controversy determination based on affidavits submitted by plaintiff's lawyers regarding the hours they had worked and their billing rates
• accepting plaintiff’s stipulations where they “merely clarify what the complaint has asserted from the outset”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).