Connection lost
Server error
GENTLE v. LAMB-WESTON, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiffs assigned 1% of their claims to an in-state party to destroy diversity and prevent removal to federal court. The court found the assignment a ‘sham’ and refused to remand the case, protecting its jurisdiction.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a federal court can disregard a partial, colorable assignment of a claim made for the sole purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction, treating it as a fraudulent device to evade federal court.
GENTLE v. LAMB-WESTON, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A group of Maine plaintiffs sued an Oregon corporation in Maine state court. To prevent the defendant from removing the case to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds, the plaintiffs assigned 1/100th of each of their claims to an Oregon citizen, George Tamblyn. Tamblyn was a law school classmate of the plaintiffs’ attorney and had no prior interest in the litigation. The assignment was admittedly an accommodation made for the sole purpose of destroying complete diversity, as both Tamblyn (now a plaintiff) and the defendant corporation were citizens of Oregon. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand to state court, arguing that the presence of an Oregon plaintiff and an Oregon defendant deprived the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a federal court disregard a partial, colorable assignment of a claim, made for the sole purpose of destroying diversity of citizenship, in order to retain its subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action?
Yes. The motion to remand is denied because the assignment was a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo cons
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a federal court disregard a partial, colorable assignment of a claim, made for the sole purpose of destroying diversity of citizenship, in order to retain its subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action?
Conclusion
This case stands for the principle that federal courts will look beyond Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
A federal court has the authority and duty to disregard a sham Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur s
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on precedent like *Provident Savings Life Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court may disregard a partial, colorable assignment of a claim