District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 in Dropping Non-Diverse Party Added to Complaint Days After Removal, Holds Third Circuit

In Avenatti v. Fox News Network LLC, No. 21-2702 (3d Cir. July 21, 2022), the Third Circuit affirms a decision of the district court to drop a defendant added to a complaint, just days after its removal, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. When non-diverse defendants are named in the state-court complaint prior to removalContinue reading “District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 in Dropping Non-Diverse Party Added to Complaint Days After Removal, Holds Third Circuit”

District Court May Not Look Behind a State Court’s Application of Its Own Procedural Law on Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Turner v. GoAuto Insurance, No. 22-30103 (5th Cir. May 2, 2022), the Fifth Circuit holds that a district court properly remanded a class action to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 when it accepted an amended complaint, filed two days before the removal petition, as the operative complaint that limited the class solelyContinue reading “District Court May Not Look Behind a State Court’s Application of Its Own Procedural Law on Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Holds Fifth Circuit”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 Pre-Filing Deposition Is Not a Vehicle for Jurisdictional Discovery, Holds Seventh Circuit

In Qin v. Deslongchamps, No. 21-1873 (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022), the Seventh Circuit affirms the denial of a petition to take a Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 deposition of a member of a limited liability corporation (LLC) to ascertain their citizenship before filing a diversity suit in federal court. For federal diversity purposes, LLCsContinue reading “Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 Pre-Filing Deposition Is Not a Vehicle for Jurisdictional Discovery, Holds Seventh Circuit”

Sixth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether Michigan’s Affidavit-of-Merit and Presuit-Notice Rules for Medical-Malpractice Actions Apply in Federal Court Under Erie and Hanna

In Albright v. Christensen. No. 21-1046 (6th Cir. Jan 31, 2022), a 2-1 panel holds that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure bar application of Michigan state-law rules requiring that a lawsuit against a medical professional for malpractice be preceded by 182-days’ notice to the defendant and accompanied by an  “affidavit of merit signed byContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether Michigan’s Affidavit-of-Merit and Presuit-Notice Rules for Medical-Malpractice Actions Apply in Federal Court Under Erie and Hanna”

Seventh Circuit Discusses “Nerve Center” Test for Diversity Jurisdiction as Applied to Corporate Subsidiaries

In Big Shoulders Capital LLC v. San Luis & Rio Grande Rd., No. 20-1503 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2021), the court remands a diversity action to determine whether the subsidiaries of a railroad – under the “nerve center” test – are citizens (1) of Illinois where the parent is headquartered, or (2) of Oregon, Delaware,Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Discusses “Nerve Center” Test for Diversity Jurisdiction as Applied to Corporate Subsidiaries”

“Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds

In Madison v. ADT LLC, No. 21-90028 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021), the panel holds that the district court should have disregarded the nominal in-state defendant when evaluating the “home state” exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). It holds that primary defendants include those at whom a lawsuit isContinue reading ““Home State” Exception to Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Does Not Apply Where the “Primary Thrust” of the Case Is Liability Against an Out-of-State Defendant, Fifth Circuit Holds”

Suit by Heir Over Deceased Parent’s Investment Does Not Fall Under Probate Exception to Diversity, Holds Eleventh Circuit

In Fisher v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 20-10110 (11th Cir. June 29, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit reverses dismissal of a state-law conversion and fraud action, finding that there is diversity jurisdiction and standing. The panel rejects the bank’s argument that the claim, concerning a joint account with an accountholder who died, falls within the probateContinue reading “Suit by Heir Over Deceased Parent’s Investment Does Not Fall Under Probate Exception to Diversity, Holds Eleventh Circuit”

Law Firm With “Stateless Partners” Not A Citizen for Purposes of Diversity, Holds Seventh Circuit

In Page v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 20-2781 (7th Cir. June 21, 2021), the Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of a defamation action against a law partnership with partners domiciled overseas, holding that it is not the citizen of any state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Carter Page, “a foreign policy advisor to former President Donald Trump’sContinue reading “Law Firm With “Stateless Partners” Not A Citizen for Purposes of Diversity, Holds Seventh Circuit”

Ninth Circuit Splits Over How to Analyze Jurisdictional Amount for Section 7 Action to Enforce Subpoena Under Federal Arbitration Act

In Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., Inc., No. 20-35931 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2021), deciding an issue of first impression for the circuit, the judges – following different routes – holds that there is diversity jurisdiction over an action under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 7, seeking enforcementContinue reading “Ninth Circuit Splits Over How to Analyze Jurisdictional Amount for Section 7 Action to Enforce Subpoena Under Federal Arbitration Act”

Fifth Circuit Wrestles with Diversity and a Quirk in Appellate Jurisdiction in Review of a Burford Abstention Decision

In Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP American Prod. Co., No. 20-30224 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2021), the Fifth Circuit – in a case of first impression for that court – decides that, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), it has appellate jurisdiction to review a Burford abstention remand to state court. It also dismisses the stateContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Wrestles with Diversity and a Quirk in Appellate Jurisdiction in Review of a Burford Abstention Decision”