BrokenMouse wrote: robinhoodOO wrote: Zaizei wrote: robinhoodOO wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...
It literally said w/intent to remain
It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.
Nope; it said both. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha
A party's citizenship at the time of the filing of the action is considered the citizenship of the party. If a defendant later moves to the same state as the plaintiff while the action is pending, the federal court will still have jurisdiction. However, if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is first filed, diversity does not exist. 28 U.S.C. §1441(b).
If plaintiff moves to destroy diversity because he wants case remanded back to the state court, this sounds awful like forum shopping/ bad faith move.
I'd agree with everything you said, except I specifically recall case filed after
. And, I definitely know I blew some issues on other Q's, but I think this is one of the few
I didn't blow
Either way, no sense beating a dead horse. Someone's wrong, and regardless of who, it's not detrimental
Day one is done! I'm confident nearly everyone in this forum has done well so far, and will continue to do well tomorrow.
Good luck guys/girls and good rest