1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 737 F.3d
  5. 737 F.3d 960 (2013)
 

QUICKEN LOANS INC. v. ALIG

Nos. 12-342, 13-1073, 13-1077.

737 F.3d 960 (2013)

QUICKEN LOANS INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. Phillip ALIG; Sara J. Alig; Roxanne Shea; Daniel V. Shea, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons, Respondents. Phillip Alig; Sara J. Alig; Roxanne Shea; Daniel V. Shea, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Quicken Loans Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant, and Title Source, Incorporated, Title Source Inc. of West Virginia, Incorporated; Dewey V. Guida; Appraisals Unlimited, Incorporated; Richard Hyett, Defendants. Phillip Alig; Sara J. Alig; Roxanne Shea; Daniel V. Shea, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Quicken Loans Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant, and Title Source, Incorporated, Title Source Inc. of West Virginia, Incorporated; Dewey V. Guida; Appraisals Unlimited, Incorporated; Richard Hyett, Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: December 19, 2013.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: Meir Feder , Jones Day, New York, New York, for Quicken Loans Incorporated. John William Barrett , Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Phillip Alig, Sara J. Alig, Roxanne Shea, and Daniel V. Shea. ON BRIEF: Carte P. Goodwin , Goodwin & Goodwin, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Tracy K. Stratford , P. Nikhil Rao , Jones Day, New York, New York, for Quicken Loans Incorporated. Jonathan R. Marshall , Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Phillip Alig, Sara J. Alig, Roxanne Shea, and Daniel V. Shea.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge WYNN joined.

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, Defendant-Appellant challenges the district court's granting of Plaintiffs-Appellees' motion to remand this case to state court. After Defendant-Appellant removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A), or the local controversy exception. The district court...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases