Riebe v. National Loan Investors, L.P.

5 Citing cases

  1. Fabry v. Carrico

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-3751 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 11, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    28 U.S.C. § 1332 establishes federal jurisdiction in diversity suits, and it is well settled that diversity jurisdiction extends only to controversies where diversity of citizenship is complete. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806); Riebe v. Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P., 828 F.Supp. 453, 455 (N.D. Tex. 1993). Defendants in an action to which a citizen of the United States who resides in another country is a party must also consider whether all parties are truly citizens of a state, not merely citizens of the United States. "The range of actions involving Americans over which the federal courts have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is described in Section 1332(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code as being between citizens of different states or between citizens of states and citizens or subjects of foreign states.

  2. Hanson v. Sonic-Frank Parra Autoplex, L.P.

    No. 3:04-CV-0108-P (N.D. Tex. Jun. 15, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    When challenging diversity jurisdiction, "the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that it is the party who urges jurisdiction upon the Court who must always bear the burden of demonstrating that the case is one which is properly before the federal tribunal." Riebe v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 828 F. Supp. 453, 455 (N.D. Tex. 1993) (quoting B. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff therefore bears the ultimate burden of overcoming Defendant's diversity jurisdiction challenge.

  3. Cartegena v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

    10 F. Supp. 2d 677 (S.D. Tex. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    However, "even if complete diversity does exist, the case may not be removed from state to federal court if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought." Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1258 (5th Cir. 1988); Riebe v. Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P., 828 F. Supp. 453, 455 (N.D.Tex. 1993); Dollar v. General Motors Corp., 814 F. Supp. 538, 543 (E.D.Tex. 1993). Since Defendant is a citizen of Texas, the state in which this Court sits, Defendant may not base removal jurisdiction on the diversity of citizenship of the parties.

  4. Sopena v. Colejon Corporation

    920 F. Supp. 259 (D.P.R. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that Puerto Rican and federal courts would have concurrent jurisdiction over overtime-wage claims asserted by employees at Roosevelt Roads Naval Base

    (See Notice of Removal, docket entry # 1). Such a generalized allegation regarding plaintiffs citizenship is insufficient to assert diversity jurisdiction. Riebe v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 828 F. Supp. 453, 455 (N.D.Tex. 1993). See also, Rule 8(a) of the Fed.R.Civ.P. and Wilkinson v. U.S., 724 F. Supp. 1200, 1205 (W.D.N.C. 1989).

  5. Beach v. Briganti

    B252049 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2014)

    Numerous other jurisdictions have likewise held that "[i]f a minority shareholder exercises actual domination and control over the corporation's business affairs, then the minority shareholder is deemed to be a controlling shareholder, and held to a fiduciary standard." (Kearney v. Jandernoa (W.D. Mich. 1997) 979 F.Supp. 576, 579; see also In re N & D Properties, Inc. (11th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 726, 731 ["A fiduciary, under general corporate theory, includes an officer, director, agent, majority shareholder or a minority shareholder exercising actual control over the corporation"]; Maggiore v. Bradford (6th Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 519, 521 ["it is well settled that dominant or controlling shareholders who exercise control over a corporation are fiduciaries"]; Riebe v. National Loan Investors, L.P. (N.D. Tex. 1993) 828 F.Supp. 453, 456 ["'[s]hareholders may hold a "dominant position" although owning less than a majority of the shares; it is sufficient if their holdings give them "working control" of the corporation.' [citation.