Case Citator › Parrino v. FHP, Inc.

Parrino v. FHP, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
146 F.3d 699
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
143 of 143
Citing cases (total)
530
Treatment dates
2006
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Parrino v. FHP, Inc.'s all-defendants-must-consent removal rule was superseded by the Class Action Fairness Act for qualifying class actions; the confirmed treatment is listed below. All 143 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The remaining opinions applied Parrino's incorporation-by-reference rule positively or merely reported Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co. and the Act's statutory displacement on other grounds. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. clarified that a document offered only to create a defense does not satisfy Parrino's own necessary-reliance condition; applying that stated boundary is not an adverse limitation.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

530 later cases cite Parrino v. FHP, Inc.; 143 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Parrino v. FHP, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by Statute

  • The Ninth Circuit held that the Class Action Fairness Act displaced Parrino's rule requiring all defendants to consent to removal for class actions covered by the Act.

    Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Section 1453(b) exempts qualifying actions from the § 1446(b) prohibition of removal “more than 1 year after commencement of the [state court] action,” and overrides the judge-created requirement that each defendant consent to removal, see Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that “The case was improperly removed because not all defendants consented to the removal” as required by § 1446); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.... ”).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Parrino v. FHP, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace