@schatow@innercitypress Which would be relevant if the 47.1 were being sought under 25-cv-10049 (the case that settled). However, they are being requested under 25-cv-449 (the case that was dismissed on MTD)
@Lawyeredup1 Which it does, under 1332. Still a controversy in excess of $75k between parties from different states. Let's not overthink diversity jurisdiction here. WF v. Lively was also brought under 1332. I just don't see how Liman doesn't retain jurisdiction.
@Lawyeredup1 The action (Wayfarer v. Lively, not Lively v. Wayfarer) has been dismissed but for the outstanding motion for fees. It is still under 28 USC 1332. The court still retains jurisdiction over the case. I don't think Royal Canin holds as this was not a removal.
Judge Liman cannot refer it to a federal magistrate if the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction. With no federal jurisdiction, she can file it in California state court. She can also file a new complaint in fed court based on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy of over $75,000.00