(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264289)

Any real comments?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264348)

ive been a lawyer for 20 yrs and never heard that term. is this some shitlaw phrase to sound smart?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264350)

I will clarify that as it might be unfamiliar to litigators (?)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264362)

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5620244&mc=87&forum_id=2#48255757

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264394)

"anyway, can someone help me out with this 1L diversity jx hypo for a 72k case i'm handling. btw i've been doing this for 20 years and am terrified of federal court lol."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264410)

You arent actually practicing law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264518)

The original pleading seems intended to keep it in State Court-- $300,000 is quite different from $72,000.

After the deadline to remove you say to OC, hey upping the damages by more than triple. You OK with that?

She says, "No" understandably.

You have a good point re the Court has not even agreed to allow you to change the ad dandum or whatever (aside, isn't this a routine amendment absent any sleazy tactic to avoid federal court? Like, if I want to amend my complaint to add a clam, etc. usually the other side agrees to allow it and, if they don't, the Court will certainly allow).

However, she will say, IF you are hell bent on the $300,000 then you should not have a problem with Federal Court, since you waited this long to amend. Why is it her problem if you just came into the case? You basically spring this big bump in damages on her after the deadline.

I think you lose.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264443)

"Bad faith" has nothing to do with whether you, personally, filed the complaint.

You are also conflating the "value" of the case with the amount in controversy. Settlement value and likelihood of success have nothing to do with whether a case is removable. If you have a case with $75,001 in damages, a 1% chance of success, and a $75 settlement value, the removal threshold is met.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264517)

as for settlement value v amount in controversy, bro, I'm trying to work around and justify the original ad damnum amount -- i already know everything you just said and am making arguments. have you ever argued anything in court in the past three years? do you know how constructing arguments works?

Anyway, you arent engaging in good faith w the name calling so I think I'm out Goldberg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264531)

No, it can't. The issues are whether a viable cause of action exists against the defendant and whether the defendant is properly joined. If those conditions are met, a plaintiff can add a defendant (even a shitty one that the plaintiff doesn't intend to aggressively pursue) for the purpose of killing diversity. If those conditions aren't met, the defendant wouldn't be a "rightful" defendant.

You are a 15th year associate who is out of his depth with very basic federal court procedural issues and has to beg a forum of lawyers who regularly mock your relationship with your wife's son. Even more embarrassingly, you deleted your post (which clearly showed that you have no idea what you are doing), and are now trying to recast your earnest questions as "just making arguments" to pretend that you really knew what you were doing all along.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265558)

your honor, not only could i not have acted in bad faith because i was not the attorney at the time, i'm also not the plaintiff! i'm his attorney!

one weird trick to avoid removal to fed courts: switch attorneys after a year.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264546)

for starters, the judge isnt going to write that. he might write something like that but he's not going to write that.

I thought you said you clerked.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264560)

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF *YOU* DIDN'T ACT IN BAD FAITH! IT MATTERS IF THE ORIGINAL ATTORNEY DID!

going from *just* under diversity jx threshold to $300k is going to look like it was done intentionally to avoid federal court. it doesn't matter if YOU did it or not, you fucking retard. you are REPRESENTING the plaintiff, not the plaintiff itself.

you provided no rationale other than "wow, it amount is really low!" for it being 72k. it seems from the facts that it *WAS* kept this low to evade diversity jx. you can't get around this by switching attorneys, you absolute FUCKING moron.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264623)

You have to have some self-awareness in order to understand that. But your schizophrenia makes that hard for you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264749)

Here's where this is probably going. If plaintiff provided defendant medical bills exceeding $75k via discovery more than 30 days ago, defendant is fucked under 28 USC 1446(c)(3)(A), because discovery material showing that the real amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold would start the 28 USC 1446(b)(3) 30 day clock.

If defendant asked for the medical bills in discovery and plaintiff dragged its feet, you have a bad faith problem and requesting leave to amend the complaint triggered the 28 USC 1446(b)(3) 30 day clock, which is why defendant's attorney isn't waiting for the state court.

If defendant never sought discovery of medical bills, it gets less clear. You're going to argue that defendant was on inquiry notice that the original ad damnum was less than (or at least became less than, more than 30 days ago) the amount in controversy, so they don't get a second bite at the apple under 28 USC 1446(b)(3). This is a bit of a needle to thread, though, because you need to steer clear of appearing in bad faith.

Note that the settlement value of the claim is not the right measure for the jurisdictional threshold. Think more what you get if you win.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265415)

*asks q*

*gets multiparagraph answer*

"Yeah I know all that already and you are fixating on one thing. Is this Kenny?"

god damn you're such an insufferable asshole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265472)

Bad student bad lawyer not a trial guy. Hey, like you!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265475)

and even if he did bring up irrelevant stuff, he tried to answer your question and didn't insult you, so even if his response was poor (it's not), that's no reason to lash out at him.

you're just lashing out because you think he's some poaster you've feuded with before.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265496)

=====================================================

Date: October 31st, 2024 3:34 PM

Author: ...:.;.;...;.;;::;

dont post unless you know what you are talking about.

I stepped into a case from another atty because the CL fired the atty. the atty had already started the ball rolling by having filed a complaint in state court on behalf of CL seeking $72K against an out of state entity.

I got the case in and agreed to take over, and about a month later, when preparing a demand, I realized that the amount sued for on the original complaint in state court was too low. So at that time, which happened to be about 54 weeks or so after the first atty filed the complaint, I told OC I was going to increase the amount sued for and would she give me leave to do so. She refused to do so so I had to schedule a stupid hearing on this just to increase the amount sued for to a more appropriate $300K. That hearing is calendared for next month and while the judge would 100 percent grant opposing counsel opposes without any legitimate rationale presumably for billing purposes.

this past Monday, I received OC's notice of removal to federal court. I note that I am beyond one year from date of filing, and I note that the amount sued for hasnt even been increased past the $72K yet, as the state court judge has to approve that increase by way of signed order, which would happen sometime next month.

Obviously I dont want to be in federal court, and obviously I will be filing a motion to remand. Given these factors, what is my likelihood of prevailing on remand motion? Before you say something stupid because you cant resist even though I said dont post on here w questions that are procedurally irrelevant or stupid hot takes or "lawyers are scum" etc, here's the statute i relied upon:

--

(1)A case may not be removed under subsection (b)(3) on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 more than 1 year after commencement of the action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.

--

As for the bad faith component--I did not file the original complaint--i only took the case over. no bad faith on my part. secondly, at the time suit was filed the medical bills were about half of what they are now and it is a premises liability case which is a bitch to prevail on outside of settlement anyway. I cannot rightly say that as of the time of filing the complaint the amount sued for of $72K was absolutely undervaluing the case at least as of the time of filing. Also, please note, the amount sued for hasnt even been increased yet and the defendant opposes that in state court but treats my motion to increase like its a done deal for purposes of removal.

Thanks for your good thoughts. Pepper my angus? Welcome to federal court?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264289)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265562)

you asked a very basic diversity jx question. literally something that would be on a 1L civpro exam. your reasoning re: you not being the initial attorney and the settlement value are completely irrelevant.

despite this, several people answered your question nicely and didn't insult you. and you still flipped out at them.

in the end, you deleted all the relevant poasts. and despite literally every person who weighed in coming to the same conclusion, you're now asserting everyone else is retarded.

even now, i am still unsure whether i'm the butt of the joke and you're some trolls masterpiece flame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265603)

Spaceporn: who says we want to remand?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265785)

"unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action."

"As for the bad faith component--I did not file the original complaint--i only took the case over. no bad faith on my part"

not that understanding why your argument is retarded would require a formal legal education anyway. this is fundamental 1L civil procedure and it's not surprising a layman would know that the PLAINTIFF does not refer to the INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS representing the plaintiff. or that it's unlikely procedural rules could be circumvented by changing attorneys.

what is surprising is that someone with a formal legal education, a license to practice law, and two decades under his belt would be so thoroughly eviscerated by a layman and continue to sperg out about it when other lawyers agree that his analysis is correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265789)